DCT

1:21-cv-00149

ABC IP LLC v. Big Daddy Enterprises

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:21-cv-00149, N.D. Fla., 06/08/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the corporate defendants having regular and established places of business within the district and the individual defendants residing in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ "WOT Hard Reset Trigger" infringes a patent related to a firearm trigger mechanism that uses the cycling of the bolt carrier to force a trigger reset.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns aftermarket "drop-in" trigger mechanisms for semi-automatic firearms, specifically the AR-15 platform, which are designed to significantly increase the achievable rate of fire.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex business history where Defendant Big Daddy Unlimited, Inc. was a former distributor for Plaintiff Rare Breed's patented product. Plaintiffs allege that after this relationship soured, Defendants developed and sold a "knock-off" product. The patent was assigned from its original owner to Rare Breed, then to an IP holding company (ABC IP LLC), which then licensed rights back to entities associated with Rare Breed. Plaintiffs have sent cease and desist letters and are party to other similar lawsuits.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-09-29 ’223 Patent Priority Date
2019-12-24 ’223 Patent Issue Date
2020-05-07 Rare Breed purchases the ’223 Patent
2020-12-01 Approximate launch of Plaintiff's FRT-15™ trigger
2021-08-31 Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendants
2021-09-07 Defendant advertises presale of the accused WOT trigger
2022-06-08 Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 - "Firearm trigger mechanism," issued December 24, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a desire among shooters to increase the rate of fire of semi-automatic firearms. It notes that standard trigger mechanisms, which rely on a disconnector, are limited by the user's ability to manually release and reset the trigger. Other solutions like "bump firing" are described as requiring practice, while alternative trigger designs are noted as being complex, expensive, or requiring modification to other firearm components like the bolt carrier (ʼ223 Patent, col. 1:16-54, col. 2:17-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a "drop-in" trigger module that replaces the standard fire control group. The key innovation is a trigger mechanism that is forcibly reset by the rearward movement of the hammer as it is pushed back by the firearm's cycling bolt carrier. A "locking bar" is also introduced, which blocks the trigger from being pulled until the bolt carrier has returned to its "in-battery" (fully forward and locked) position, thereby preventing "hammer follow" (the hammer falling before a round is chambered) (ʼ223 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:39-51). This interaction is illustrated in Figure 5, which depicts the bolt carrier forcing the hammer and trigger into a reset status (ʼ223 Patent, FIG. 5).
  • Technical Importance: The design purports to offer a reliable method for achieving a rapid rate of fire in a common firearm platform (the AR-15) using a self-contained module that does not require permanent modification to the host firearm (ʼ223 Patent, col. 2:30-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶87).
  • The essential elements of Claim 4 are:
    • a housing having transversely aligned pairs of openings for receiving hammer and trigger assembly pins;
    • a hammer having a sear notch and mounted in the housing to pivot on a transverse axis between set and released positions;
    • a trigger member having a sear and mounted in the housing to pivot on a transverse axis, with a surface positioned to be contacted by the hammer when displaced by the cycling bolt carrier, causing the trigger member to be forced to the set position;
    • a locking bar pivotally mounted in the housing and spring biased toward a first position where it mechanically blocks the trigger member, and movable to a second position when contacted by the bolt carrier reaching a substantially in-battery position, in which the trigger can be moved to the released position.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendants' product is identified as the “WOT Hard Reset Trigger” ("the Infringing Device") (Compl. ¶77).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the WOT trigger is a "knock-off version" of Plaintiffs' FRT-15™ trigger assembly and functions as a drop-in replacement trigger for AR-15 pattern firearms (Compl. ¶59, ¶76). The complaint alleges that Defendant BDU was previously the "first and only distributor" of Plaintiffs' patented product before forming a competing company, Wide Open, to sell the accused WOT trigger (Compl. ¶54). The complaint presents side-by-side photographs to support its allegation that the accused device is a "nearly exact knock-off" of the commercial embodiment of the ’223 Patent (Compl. ¶79). One such photograph provides a visual comparison of the internal components of the Infringing Device and Plaintiffs' FRT-15™ trigger (Compl. ¶79, p. 24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a claim chart alleging infringement of Claim 4 of the ’223 Patent. The chart includes annotated photographs of the accused device corresponding to claim elements.

’223 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a housing having transversely aligned pairs of openings for receiving hammer and trigger assembly pins; The WOT trigger is alleged to include a housing with transversely aligned pairs of openings, as depicted in an annotated photograph (Compl. ¶88, p. 28). ¶88 col. 4:35-45
a hammer having a sear notch and mounted in the housing to pivot on a transverse axis between set and released positions; The WOT trigger is alleged to include a hammer with a sear notch mounted to pivot on a transverse axis, as shown in an annotated photograph identifying the components (Compl. ¶88, p. 28). ¶88 col. 4:25-29
a trigger member having a sear and mounted in the housing to pivot on a transverse axis between set and released positions, the trigger member having a surface positioned to be contacted by the hammer when the hammer is displaced by the bolt carrier when cycled, the contact causing the trigger member to be forced to the set position; The WOT trigger is alleged to have a trigger member with a sear and a contact surface. This surface is allegedly positioned to be contacted by the hammer during cycling, which forces the trigger to reset, as depicted in annotated photographs (Compl. ¶88, p. 29-30). ¶88 col. 5:32-37
a locking bar pivotally mounted in the housing and spring biased toward a first position in which the locking bar mechanically blocks the trigger member from moving to the released position, and movable against the spring bias to a second position when contacted by the bolt carrier reaching a substantially in-battery position... The WOT trigger is alleged to include a pivoting, spring-biased locking bar. In a first position, it allegedly blocks the trigger. It is allegedly moved to a second, un-locked position by the bolt carrier returning to battery, as illustrated in a series of annotated photographs (Compl. ¶88, p. 30-31). This is supported by an image showing bolt carrier contact disengaging the lock (Compl. ¶88, p. 31). ¶88 col. 4:60 - col. 5:6
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: While the complaint alleges the accused device is a "near exact copy," it also notes minor differences, such as "skeletonizing" the parts to reduce material and adding a guide rod for a spring (Compl. ¶78). A potential question for the court is whether these or any other unmentioned modifications create a material difference in the operation of the device compared to the functions recited in the claims.
    • Scope Questions: The core of the infringement allegation appears to be literal infringement based on direct copying. The dispute may focus less on the meaning of claim terms and more on a factual, element-by-element comparison of the accused device's structure and function against the claim language. A key question will be whether the accused device's "locking bar" performs the precise blocking and releasing function as defined by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "forced to the set position"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the central novelty of the invention: the trigger is not merely allowed to reset by the user, but is actively and mechanically forced back by another component (the hammer). The interpretation of "forced" will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from standard semi-automatic triggers and other prior art.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly describes the action as "contact between the hammer and a surface of the trigger member" that "causes the trigger to be forcibly reset" (’223 Patent, col. 2:40-42). This language does not limit the specific geometry or nature of the contact.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiment shows contact between the "tail portion 44" of the hammer and the "rear contact surface 30" of the trigger member (’223 Patent, col. 4:5-8; col. 5:34-37). A defendant could argue that "forced" should be construed to require this specific type of interaction shown in the figures.

  • The Term: "mechanically blocks"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the function of the locking bar, a key safety and operational feature. The nature and sufficiency of the "block" is central to infringement. If the accused device's mechanism for preventing trigger pull is different, it may not infringe.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "mechanically blocks" without specifying the manner of blocking (’223 Patent, cl. 4). This may support an interpretation that covers any form of physical impediment to the trigger's movement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures show a specific interaction where the locking bar (62) pivots into a position that physically interferes with the trigger member (26) (’223 Patent, col. 5:38-46; FIG. 5). An argument could be made that "mechanically blocks" is limited to this direct physical interference as depicted.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants are liable for contributory infringement by selling components "especially made or adapted for use in an infringement" that are not a "staple article of commerce" (Compl. ¶93). It also alleges inducement through the act of selling the accused device (Compl. ¶87).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendants' prior business relationship as a distributor for Plaintiffs' patented product, their alleged defiance of a cease and desist letter, and their alleged direction to engineers to "disassemble an FRT-15™ in order to replicate its working parts," a product marked with the ’223 patent number (Compl. ¶54, ¶57, ¶85, ¶106).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central issue will be one of factual identity: Given the complaint’s extensive allegations of direct copying, supported by side-by-side photographs, the case may turn on a factual determination of whether the accused WOT trigger is structurally and functionally the same as the device defined by Claim 4, or if any differences are sufficient to avoid infringement.
  • A key technical question will be one of operational equivalence: Does the accused device’s locking bar perform the specific, two-part function required by Claim 4—first, "mechanically blocking" the trigger, and second, releasing that block only when "contacted by the bolt carrier reaching a substantially in-battery position"? The precise timing and mechanics of this safety feature will likely be a point of intense scrutiny.
  • A significant question for the remedy phase will be culpability: Can Plaintiffs prove their detailed allegations that Defendants, as former distributors, deliberately and knowingly copied a product they knew was patented? The resolution of this will be determinative for the claim of willful infringement and potential for enhanced damages.