Atrius Development Group Corporation, Inc. v. ABC IP, LLC et al.
Case Overview
- Case Name: Atrius Development Group Corporation, Inc. v. ABC IP, LLC et al.
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland Division)
- Case Number: 7:26-cv-211
- Filing Date: May 26, 2026
- Plaintiffs: Atrius Development Group Corporation, Inc.
- Defendants: ABC IP, LLC; Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.; Rare Breed Firearms LLC; Lawrence DeMonico; Kevin Maxwell; Cole LeLeux; and Michael Register
- Nature of Action: Civil lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of a patent, with a demand for a jury trial.
Executive Summary
Plaintiff Atrius Development Group Corporation, Inc. (the designer and manufacturer of the Atrius Forced Reset Selector) has filed a comprehensive declaratory judgment lawsuit against patent owner ABC IP, LLC, exclusive licensee Rare Breed entities, and corporate principals. The federal complaint alleges that the Defendants have engaged in an ongoing campaign of intimidation by aggressively asserting unfounded patent infringement claims through a wave of predatory lawsuits targeting Atrius’s retail customers and resellers across the United States, while failing to sue Atrius directly.
Atrius contends that its Atrius Forced Reset Selector (FRS) product does not infringe upon newly-issued U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 (“the ‘403 Patent”). Furthermore, the suit seeks a judicial declaration that the ‘403 Patent is invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during patent prosecution, aiming to halt Defendants’ strategy of disrupting Atrius’s customer relationships and distribution channels.
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 / Declaratory Relief
Declaratory Judgment Claims (Counts I – III)
The complaint seeks judicial declarations regarding U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 owned by ABC IP, LLC:
| Count / Relief | Asserted Patent | Technical / Mechanical Focus of Claim |
| Count I | U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 | Declaratory judgment of non-infringement, establishing that the Atrius FRS does not embody or practice the required locking member mechanisms or disconnector-disabling operations. |
| Count II | U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 | Declaratory judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, highlighting pre-filing prior art like the Tommy Triggers FRT-15-3MD and Rare Breed FRT-15E3. |
| Count III | U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 | Declaratory judgment of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct and infectious unenforceability resulting from intentional withholding of material prior art during patent prosecution. |
Remedy & Relief Sought
Atrius claims severe ongoing economic and commercial harm resulting from Defendants’ reseller-suit intimidation campaign and threatened preliminary injunction motions. They are requesting that the federal court grant the following relief:
- Declaratory Judgments: Judicial decrees confirming that the Atrius FRS does not infringe the ‘403 Patent, that the patent claims are invalid, and that the patent is unenforceable.
- Corrective Action: Ordering Defendants to execute any necessary corrective actions before the USPTO, such as terminal disclaimers or corrective filings.
- Injunctions: A permanent injunction restraining Defendants and their agents from threatening or initiating any patent infringement actions against Atrius, its resellers, customers, or distributors regarding the FRS product.
- Legal Fees & Costs: Declaring Atrius the prevailing party, finding the case exceptional, and awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
