SHREVEPORT, La. – A Louisiana firearms distributor is being accused of infringing four patents related to firearm trigger mechanisms, specifically forced reset triggers.
Plaintiffs ABC IP and Rare Breed Triggers filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division.
In the 49-page lawsuit, ABC and Rare Breed accuse defendant Sports South of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 12,038,247, 12,031,784, 12,578,159, and 12,636,403.
According to its website, Shreveport-based Sports South is the country’s oldest and largest distributor of firearms, ammunition, and accessories.
Meanwhile, Rare Breed holds various patents and trademarks for firearm trigger mechanisms, including forced reset triggers, or FRTs.
ABC, in Delaware, frequently files federal lawsuits alongside Rare Breed, based in Texas, against various tactical gear makers, distributors, and retailers for alleged patent infringement, according to an Internet search of the companies.
ABC is the owner of the ‘247, ‘784, ‘159, and ‘403 patents, while Rare Breed is the exclusive licensee of the patents, according to ABC’s filing.
As ABC explains in its complaint, a typical AR15-pattern firearm is considered a semiautomatic firearm.
The operation of a standard disconnector AR-pattern trigger mechanism is commenced by the trigger member being pulled by the user. The trigger member releases the hammer from the trigger sear and allows the hammer to strike the firing pin.
A portion of the propellant gas is used to begin the process of sending the bolt carrier to the rear of the firearm.
The rearward movement of the bolt carrier cocks the hammer on the disconnector and then the bolt is allowed to return forward into the battery with a new round inserted into the chamber.
While this is happening, in the standard AR-pattern semiautomatic trigger, the user can either continue to hold the trigger member in a pulled, or fired, state or allow the trigger to return to its reset state, in which the sear, rather than the disconnector, engages and holds the hammer in a cocked position.
“When the user reduces pressure on the trigger member to allow the trigger spring to reset the trigger member, the disconnector releases the hammer to engage the trigger sear,” the complaint states.
In the standard AR-pattern trigger assembly, the purpose of the disconnector is to hold the hammer in a cocked position until the trigger member is reset by a trigger spring when the user lets the trigger reset, ABC explains.
The disconnector allows the firearm to be fired only a single time when the trigger is pulled and held, because the user is not typically able to manually reset the trigger rapidly enough so that the sear engages before the bolt carrier or bolt returns to its in-battery position, the filing states.
The disconnector prevents the firearm from either firing multiple rounds on a single pull of the trigger, or from allowing the hammer to simply “follow” the bolt carrier as it returns to battery without firing a second round, leaving the hammer uncocked, ABC explains.
According to the lawsuit, ’247 and ’159 patents provide a “novel device” for accelerating the firing sequence of any semiautomatic firearm, in contrast to a standard semiautomatic trigger or other prior art devices that allow an accelerated rate of semiautomatic firing.
“The ’784 patent provides a device that works in a trigger system as an extended trigger member locking mechanism for use with a semi-automatic firearm that employs, in some embodiments, a ‘deflectable extension of the locking member that is actuated by forward movement of the bolt carrier,’ among other innovations as explicitly claimed,” the filing states.
ABC’s ’403 patent describes and claims a similarly operating device with the additional feature that it can be selected to operate in either of two distinct modes: 1) standard disconnector semiautomatic mode and 2) “forced reset” semiautomatic mode.
“Defendant previously or is currently making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale products that embody the technology claimed in the Asserted Patents, including a (3-Position) ‘Atrius Forced Reset Selector’ (‘the Atrius Selector’), which embodies the technology claimed in at least the ’247, ’784, ’159, and ’403 Patents,” the complaint states.
ABC and Rare Breed seek a preliminary injunction enjoining Sports South from infringement or contributing to the infringement of the patents; a permanent injunction enjoining Sports South from infringement or contributing to the infringement of the patents; compensatory damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; an award of all profits received by Sports South from sales and revenues of any kind; ascertainable damages; and attorneys’ fees.
Plauche Maselli Parkerson LLP’s New Orleans and Baton Rouge offices, Cincinnati firm Wood Herron & Evans LLP, Fish & Richardson PC in Dallas, and Whitaker Chalk Swindle and Schwartz PLLC in Fort Worth, Texas, are representing the plaintiffs.
