ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Southern KY Outdoorsman et al
Case Overview
- Case Name: ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Southern KY Outdoorsman et al.
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (London Division)
- Case Number: 6:26-cv-00177-KKC
- Filing Date: June 5, 2026
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.
- Defendants: Southern KY Outdoorsman (a sole proprietorship) and Brian Blankenship
- 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 Kentucky-based retail operation Southern KY Outdoorsman and its individual owner, Brian Blankenship. The federal complaint alleges that the Defendants are actively making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale unauthorized products—specifically the “(3-Position) Super Safety” trigger kits and related partial components.
Plaintiffs contend that these products directly infringe upon their intellectual property portfolio protecting “forced reset trigger” (FRT) firearm innovations. Because the Defendants reportedly continued marketing these systems with knowledge of the underlying legal protections, the Plaintiffs are accusing them of egregious, 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 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 Southern KY Outdoorsman’s product offerings (sold via their dedicated Facebook digital storefront) 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 mechanism utilizing a moving cam lobe to physically force the trigger member back into its set position during forced-reset operations. |
| Count II | U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 | Extended trigger locking device featuring a generally upwardly extending extension portion configured to make actuating contact with a surface of the cycling bolt carrier. |
| Count III | U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 | Safety mechanism for a firearm featuring a multi-mode cam selector with specific internal recess geometries to toggle between standard, forced-reset, and safe modes. |
| Count IV | U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 | Firearm trigger mechanism for accelerating firing sequences utilizing a multi-mode cam operation to force the trigger member forward without traditional disconnector dependency. |
| Count V | U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 | Structural framework focusing on a movable safety selector that coordinates interaction profiles between hammer hooks, disconnectors, and trigger members. |
Indirect and Contributory Infringement
- Inducing Infringement: The suit highlights that the Defendants take active steps to encourage and instruct customers on how to install and operate the Super Safety kits, fully aware that these actions induce direct patent infringement.
- Contributory Infringement: Asserts that components sold by the Defendants—such as the isolated cam and cam lever arm partial kits—are specially designed and fabricated for infringing use and are not suitable for any substantial, non-infringing purpose.
Remedy & Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs claim severe, ongoing economic and reputational harm due to these unauthorized retail operations. They are requesting that the federal court grant the following relief:
- Injunctions: Both preliminary and permanent injunctions to immediately halt Southern KY Outdoorsman, Brian Blankenship, and their agents from manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, or importing the Super Safety configurations or any underlying components.
- Damages: Full financial compensation adequate to compensate for the infringement, calculated as lost retail profits or no less than a reasonable royalty, alongside pre- and post-judgment interest.
- Punitive Multipliers: Asking the court to treble (triple) the final calculated compensatory damages due to the “egregious and willful” nature of the patent violations.
- 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, costs, and associated legal expenses.
