ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Lam Solutions et al.
Case Overview
- Case Name: ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Lam Solutions et al.
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Lafayette Division)
- Case Number: 4:26-CV-00049
- Filing Date: May 27, 2026
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.
- Defendants: Lam Solutions (a sole proprietorship), Matthew Lam, and Nate Lam
- 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 patent infringement lawsuit against Indiana-based sole proprietorship Lam Solutions and its individual operators, Matthew Lam and Nate Lam. The federal complaint alleges that the Defendants are actively making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing unauthorized products—specifically the 3-Position “Super Safety” kits distributed via their digital storefront at www.lamsolutions.com.
Plaintiffs contend that these products directly infringe upon their extensive intellectual property portfolio protecting “forced reset trigger” (FRT) firearm innovations. Because the Defendants reportedly continued marketing these systems despite widespread notice of the relevant legal protections, the Plaintiffs are accusing them of 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 locking bars, cams, or lever systems cycled directly by the firearm’s reciprocating bolt carrier. This mechanically forces the trigger forward into its set reset position during automation/action cycles, 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 Lam Solutions’ product offerings 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. |
| 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 | Safety mechanism for a firearm employing a multi-recess cam selector configured to operate between standard, active reset, and safe positions. |
| 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 between hammer hooks, trigger members, and safety selectors. |
Remedy & Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs claim severe, ongoing economic and reputational harm due to these unauthorized sales and distribution practices. They are requesting that the federal court grant the following relief:
- Injunctions: Both preliminary and permanent injunctions to immediately halt Lam Solutions, Matthew Lam, Nate Lam, and their agents from manufacturing, importing, advertising, or selling the Super Safety kits 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 an accounting of all sales and revenues.
- Punitive Multipliers: Asking the court to treble (triple) the final calculated damages due to the 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.
