ABC IP, LLC et al. v. 810VELOCITY L.L.C et al
Case Overview
- Case Name: ABC IP, LLC et al. v. 810VELOCITY L.L.C et al.
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
- Case Number: 4:26-cv-12546-FKB-KGA
- Filing Date: July 24, 2026
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.
- Defendants: 810VELOCITY L.L.C and Andrew C. Carr
- Nature of Action: Civil lawsuit alleging willful patent infringement with a demand for a jury trial.
Executive Summary
Plaintiffs ABC IP, LLC (the patent owner) and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. (the exclusive licensee) have filed a multi-count lawsuit against Michigan-based 810VELOCITY L.L.C and its owner/operator, Andrew C. Carr. The federal complaint alleges that the Defendants are actively manufacturing, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, and selling unauthorized forced reset products—specifically 3-Position Super Safety Kits (in 4140 and D2 steel variants) and VxR FRD assemblies/kits.
Plaintiffs contend that these products directly infringe upon five utility patents in their intellectual property portfolio protecting “forced reset trigger” (FRT) firearm innovations. Because the Defendants reportedly continued manufacturing and marketing these systems despite knowledge of the relevant patent protections, the Plaintiffs are charging them with willful infringement, opening the door for enhanced damages.
The Technology in Dispute
The lawsuit centers on advanced firearm trigger engineering—specifically the mechanical transition from standard semi-automatic mechanisms to patented forced reset trigger (FRT) assemblies:
- Standard Semi-Automatic Trigger: Relies on a traditional disconnector mechanism. When a round is fired, the user must manually release rearward finger pressure on the trigger so the disconnector can hand the hammer back off to the main trigger sear before the firearm can be discharged again.
- Forced Reset Mechanism (The Patented Invention): Eliminates the necessity of traditional disconnector dependency during accelerated sequences. Instead, it utilizes specialized cams, levers, or link structures cycled directly by the firearm’s reciprocating bolt carrier. This mechanically forces the trigger forward into its set reset position during the action cycle, allowing for an accelerated, highly efficient firing sequence without converting the firearm into an automatic weapon.
Breakdown of Infringement Claims
Patent Infringement (Counts I – V)
The complaint asserts that 810VELOCITY L.L.C’s product offerings (sold via 810velocity.com) infringe upon five distinct U.S. Patents owned by ABC IP, LLC:
| Count | Asserted Patent | Technical / Mechanical Focus of Claim |
| Count I | U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 | Overarching dual-mode trigger utilizing a moving cam lobe to physically force the trigger member back into its set position during cycle operations. |
| Count II | U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 | Extended trigger locking device featuring an upwardly extending deflectable lever arm actuated by direct contact with the cycling bolt carrier. |
| Count III | U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 | Multi-mode safety selector mechanism featuring specific longitudinal slots, cams, and bottom-side recess geometry to alter trigger tail movement between standard, active reset, and safe settings. |
| Count IV | U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 | Novel firearm mechanism for accelerating firing sequences utilizing multi-mode operations and specific internal sear surface geometries. |
| Count V | U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 | Structural claim focusing on the physical interaction profiles and timing between hammer hooks, trigger members, disconnectors, and safety selectors. |
Remedy & Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs claim severe, ongoing economic and reputational harm due to these unauthorized manufacturing activities and sales practices. They are requesting that the federal court grant the following relief:
- Injunctions: Both preliminary and permanent injunctions to immediately halt 810VELOCITY L.L.C, Andrew C. Carr, and their agents from manufacturing, importing, advertising, or selling the Super Safety, VxR FRD devices, or any aftermarket components embodying or infringing the Asserted Patents.
- Damages & Accounting: Full financial compensation for lost retail profits or reasonable royalties resulting from patent infringement, alongside a full accounting of all sales.
- Punitive Multipliers: Asking the court to treble (triple) the final calculated damages due to the “egregious and willful” nature of the patent infringement.
- Legal Fees: A declaration that this constitutes an “exceptional case” under federal law (35 U.S.C. § 285), requiring the Defendants to pay all of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and associated legal expenses.
