Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP Sue Olde English Outfitters Over “Super Safety” Kits
Case Overview: ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Olde English Gun Shoppe Inc. et al.
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division)
- Case Number: 1:26-cv-00523
- Filing Date: May 27, 2026
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC & Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.
- Defendants: Olde English Gun Shoppe Inc. d/b/a Old English Outfitters, & Evan English
- Nature of Action: Complaint for Patent Infringement (Jury Trial Demanded)
Legal Alert: Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP Sue Ohio-Based Old English Outfitters Over “Super Safety” Kits
The nationwide patent enforcement campaign surrounding forced reset firearm technology has landed in Ohio. On May 27, 2026, ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. filed a federal patent infringement lawsuit against Olde English Gun Shoppe Inc. (doing business as Old English Outfitters) and individual Evan English in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The 68-page complaint alleges that the defendants’ marketing and sale of specialized multi-position fire control systems and components directly infringe a portfolio of five utility patents protecting advanced forced reset trigger functionality.
The Parties
- Plaintiffs: ABC IP, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company holding ownership of the patents by assignment. Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. is a Texas corporation operating as the exclusive licensee. Rare Breed is well known in the firearms industry for its development, licensing, and commercialization of forced reset trigger (FRT) mechanisms.
- Defendants: Olde English Gun Shoppe Inc., d/b/a Old English Outfitters, is an Ohio corporation with a place of business in Tipp City, Ohio. Evan English is an individual residing at the same Tipp City location. The complaint states that the defendants have utilized their Facebook page to market the accused hardware.
The Technology & Asserted Patents
In a standard AR-15 pattern semiautomatic firearm, a disconnector catches and holds the hammer in a cocked state after cycling, requiring the shooter to manually reduce pressure and let the trigger spring physically reset the mechanism forward before a subsequent shot can be fired. Conversely, a forced reset trigger mechanism actively utilizes the mechanical kinetic energy of the moving bolt carrier to forcibly push the trigger member into its reset position, allowing an accelerated rate of semiautomatic firing without reliance on a traditional disconnector system.
The plaintiffs assert that the defendants’ product lines—which permit a mechanical selection between standard disconnector operation, active forced reset functionality, and safe modes—infringe the following five utility patents:
- U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 (Issued July 16, 2024): Covers an accelerated semiautomatic firing device that utilizes a rotating cam driven by the action’s cycle to actively force a trigger reset and momentarily lock it until the action returns to battery.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 (Issued July 9, 2024): Protects an extended trigger member locking device employing a deflectable or foldable extension portion that clears geometric constraints when contacted by a cycling bolt carrier.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 (Issued January 20, 2026): Covers a three-mode safety mechanism featuring a unique cam selector with distinct recesses configured to selectively permit, guide, or block the movement of a trigger tail portion.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 (Issued March 17, 2026): Details a multi-mode firearm trigger layout utilizing an internal cam lobe to actively force a trigger member toward its set position during cycling.
- U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 (Issued May 26, 2026): Describes a multi-position selector mechanism permitting mechanical configuration between a standard disconnector semiautomatic mode and an active forced reset semiautomatic mode.
Infringement Claims & Allegations
The complaint outlines five distinct counts of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, alleging that Old English Outfitters engages in direct, induced, and contributory infringement.
The primary target of the suit is the defendants’ commercialization of the AS Designs 4140 “Super Safety” kits and components. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have distributed the accused technology across multiple retail formats:
- Partial Parts Kits: Comprising at minimum specialized cam and cam lever elements designed to combine with a standard AR-pattern hammer, disconnector, and springs to assemble an infringing fire control group.
- Complete Kits: Bundling the proprietary cam and lever components alongside standard AR-pattern hammers, disconnectors, springs, and modified triggers to deliver out-of-the-box forced reset performance.
- Pre-Installed Systems: Offering complete forced reset fire control assemblies pre-installed directly inside an AR-pattern receiver or a complete firearm.
Plaintiffs claim the defendants actively induce infringement by advertising, promoting, and instructing consumers on how to use the Super Safety kits. Furthermore, the suit alleges contributory infringement, maintaining that these components are specially engineered for fire control manipulation and possess no substantial, non-infringing structural uses. The plaintiffs contend the infringement is willful, noting the defendants proceeded with sales despite clear public awareness of the patent portfolio.
Relief Sought
ABC IP and Rare Breed Triggers are seeking substantial legal and equitable remedies from the Ohio federal court:
- Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions to immediately halt Old English Outfitters and its associates from manufacturing, offering for sale, or distributing the Super Safety kits, components, and related hardware.
- Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined at trial, calculated as lost profits or a reasonable royalty.
- Treble Damages (up to three times the compensatory finding) due to the alleged willful and deliberate nature of the infringement.
- An award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285, designating the litigation as an exceptional case.
The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Wood Herron & Evans LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C. The defendants have not yet filed formal responsive pleadings or counterclaims in the matter.
