Franklin Armory Holdings Inc v. Ak Build Tools LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Franklin Armory Holdings, Inc. and Franklin Armory Inc. (Nevada)
  • Defendant: AK Build Tools, LLC, and Todd Alex Rice (Nebraska)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hilgers Graben PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-03009, D. Neb., 01/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Nebraska on the basis that Defendants reside, maintain a physical place of business, and transact business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Binary Boogie Hook" pull-release trigger system infringes a patent related to a trigger group for semi-automatic firearms.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns firearm trigger mechanisms that discharge one round on the trigger pull and a second round on the trigger release, designed to provide an increased rate of fire while remaining outside the legal definition of a "machine gun."
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 10,393,461, was the subject of an Ex Parte Reexamination, which concluded on March 22, 2022. The USPTO issued a certificate confirming the patentability of the independent claims as amended. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of infringement via cease-and-desist letters dated April 27, 2020, and August 29, 2022.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-07-19	'461 Patent Priority Date
2019-07-01	Alleged Infringement Start Date (approx.)
2019-08-27	'461 Patent Issue Date
2020-04-27	Plaintiff sends first cease-and-desist letter
2022-03-22	'461 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued
2022-08-29	Plaintiff sends second cease-and-desist letter
2023-01-27	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,393,461 - "Trigger Group for Semi-Automatic Firearms", Issued August 27, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art "pull-release" triggers as suffering from serious design flaws, including the need for multiple selector levers, placement of levers inside the trigger guard which increased the risk of accidental discharge, and the inability to return the firearm to a "safe" condition after pulling the trigger in the pull-release mode without first firing a second shot upon release (Compl. ¶13; ’461 Patent, col. 1:46-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a trigger group that uses a single selector, located outside the trigger guard, to switch between three modes: safe, standard semi-automatic, and pull-release firing. A key aspect of the design is a disconnector assembly that allows the user to return the firearm to the safe mode even after the trigger has been pulled, addressing a significant safety concern with earlier designs (’461 Patent, col. 2:8-48, col. 9:37-44; Compl. ¶14).
• Technical Importance: The described solution provides a unified control mechanism that improves the safety and usability of pull-release trigger systems compared to the prior art available at the time (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 and 9 (Compl. ¶33).
• Independent Claim 1 (as amended during reexamination) requires:
  • A hammer movable between a cocked and striking position.
  • A trigger element movable between a rest and actuated position.
  • A movable sear to engage a first hammer hook.
  • A selector movable between a first (semi-auto), second (pull-release), and third (safe) position.
  • A disconnector assembly comprising a "plurality of disconnector hooks" to engage a second hammer hook.
  • The disconnector assembly operating in the first position to retain the hammer after a shot (semi-auto mode).
  • The disconnector assembly operating in the second position to release the hammer upon trigger release (pull-release mode).
  • The selector operating in the third position to prevent discharge of the firearm (safe mode).
  • The selector being rotatable about a single axis.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Binary Boogie Hook," a pull-release trigger system sold for use in various firearms, including civilian AK pattern rifles (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused product is a competing pull-release trigger system sold as a kit for end-user installation (Compl. ¶¶23, 26). The complaint alleges the product is marketed using Plaintiff's "Binary®" mark and is sold with instructions for installation and "tuning" to achieve the pull-release functionality (Compl. ¶¶24, 25). Exhibit L to the complaint provides a screenshot of the "Binary Boogie Hook" product page, which includes customer reviews comparing it to Plaintiff's product (Compl. Ex. L).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'461 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a hammer movable between a cocked position and a striking position; the hammer being biased toward the striking position; the hammer having a first hammer hook; the hammer having a second hammer hook;	The complaint alleges the Boogie Hook trigger kit includes a hammer with the claimed features (Compl. Ex. I).	¶33	col. 4:64-65
a trigger element movable by a user between a rest position and an actuated position;	The Boogie Hook kit includes a trigger element that is pulled by the user to initiate firing (Compl. Ex. I).	¶33	col. 5:12-16
a movable sear responsive to movement of the trigger element and operable to engage the first hammer hook...	The Boogie Hook trigger element allegedly includes a sear surface that engages the hammer to hold it in a cocked position (Compl. Ex. I).	¶33	col. 5:12-16
a selector movable between at least a first position, a second position, and a third position;	The Boogie Hook product is alleged to have a selector that allows the user to choose between different firing modes, including a safe position (Compl. ¶25, Ex. I).	¶33	col. 5:32-35
a disconnector assembly operably connected to the selector and comprising a plurality of disconnector hooks...	The complaint alleges the Boogie Hook contains a disconnector mechanism that functions as a "plurality of disconnector hooks" to enable semi-auto and pull-release firing modes.	¶33	col. 8:30-55
the disconnector assembly operable when the selector is in the first position to retain the hammer in the cocked position...by engagement of the second hammer hook with one of the plurality of disconnector hooks;	The Boogie Hook is alleged to function in a standard semi-automatic mode, where the disconnector catches the hammer after firing until the trigger is released and reset.	¶33	col. 6:50-60
the disconnector assembly operable when the selector is in the second position to release the hammer...by release of the second hammer hook by another one of the plurality of disconnector hooks...	The Boogie Hook is alleged to have a pull-release ("binary") mode where it fires a second shot upon the release of the trigger (Compl. ¶¶25, 41).	¶33	col. 8:1-9
the selector operating when in the third position to prevent discharge of the firearm...	The Boogie Hook is alleged to have a "safe" mode that prevents the firearm from discharging (Compl. ¶25, Ex. I).	¶33	col. 6:5-15
wherein the selector is rotatable about a single axis.	The selector in the accused product is alleged to rotate on a single axis to switch between modes (Compl. Ex. I).	¶33	col. 4:50-55

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the term "a plurality of disconnector hooks," which was added to Claim 1 during reexamination. The question for the court will be whether the specific mechanical structure of the accused Boogie Hook's disconnector system falls within the proper construction of this term.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Boogie Hook is sold as a kit and that "most will need some tuning to make the timing correct" (Compl. ¶25, Ex. I). This raises the question of whether the product as sold directly infringes, or if infringement only occurs after modification by the end user. The complaint provides installation instructions for the accused product, which detail the components and the steps required for a user to achieve the allegedly infringing functionality (Compl. Ex. I). This evidence may be used to support the claims for indirect infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a plurality of disconnector hooks"
• Context and Importance: This limitation was added to independent claim 1 during reexamination, replacing the broader "hammer retention facility," and is therefore likely to be a focal point of the dispute. The infringement analysis for both direct and indirect infringement will depend heavily on whether the accused product's disconnector mechanism is found to embody a "plurality" of hooks.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes two distinct components that perform disconnector functions: a "binary disconnector 38" having a "hook 48" and a "semi-automatic disconnector 50" having a "hook 60" ('461 Patent, col. 5:7-12, Fig. 15). Plaintiff may argue this explicitly discloses two separate hooks, thereby satisfying the plain meaning of "plurality."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the two disconnector components are assembled into a single, integrated functional unit and should not be considered a "plurality" for the purposes of the claim. They might point to figures showing the components stacked together and interacting as a single assembly to argue they are not structurally or functionally distinct in the manner required by the claim language (’461 Patent, Fig. 15).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Defendant provides customers with written instructions (Compl. Ex. I) on how to install and "tune" the Boogie Hook to enable its "advertised binary firing capability" (Compl. ¶41). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the product is a material component specially adapted for infringement and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶43).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on pre-suit knowledge of the '461 patent. The basis for this allegation is two cease-and-desist letters sent to Defendant on April 27, 2020, and August 29, 2022, and Defendant's alleged refusal to cease the accused activities after being notified (Compl. ¶¶27-29, 34).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the term "a plurality of disconnector hooks," which was added during reexamination to secure patentability, be construed to read on the specific mechanical design of the accused "Binary Boogie Hook"? The outcome of this construction will be pivotal to the infringement analysis.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement liability: does the accused product, as sold in kit form, meet all limitations of the asserted claims, thereby constituting direct infringement? Or does it only become infringing after the end-user performs the "tuning" and installation steps detailed in the provided instructions, which would shift the primary focus to the allegations of indirect infringement?