DCT

2:24-cv-01395

Franklin Armory Inc v. No BS Accessories Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01395, D. Nev., 07/30/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Nevada because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the district, employ residents who act as agents in Las Vegas, conduct sales and ship products into Nevada, and have participated in gun shows in Reno and Las Vegas to market the accused products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "FOPAR" trigger group, which offers safe, semi-automatic, and pull-release firing modes, infringes a patent related to a three-mode firearm trigger system.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns firearm trigger mechanisms that enable a round to be fired upon both the pull and the release of the trigger, a feature designed to increase the rate of fire while remaining outside the federal legal definition of a machine gun.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 10,393,461, survived an ex parte reexamination proceeding, with a certificate issued on March 22, 2022. During reexamination, the asserted independent claims were amended and confirmed as patentable by the USPTO, a factor that may strengthen the patent’s presumption of validity. The complaint also details a prior 2022 trademark dispute between the parties over Plaintiff's "Binary" and "Binary Firing System" marks.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-07-19 ’461 Patent earliest priority date
2019-08-27 ’461 Patent issue date
2022-03-22 ’461 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued
2022-08-19 Franklin Armory contacts Defendant Kipfmiller regarding trademark use
2022-08-22 Defendant Kipfmiller forms Defendant NO B.S. ACCESSORIES CO.
2022-11-02 Earliest alleged date of infringing sales of 3-position FOPAR trigger
2024-07-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

Note: The claims of this patent were amended and confirmed patentable via an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued March 22, 2022. The analysis herein is based on the reexamined claims. (Compl. ¶23-24; Compl. Ex. D).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes safety and operational flaws in prior art "pull-release" triggers. These included placing the mode selector lever inside the trigger guard, which could increase the risk of accidental discharge, and, critically, not allowing a user to switch the firearm to a safe condition after pulling the trigger in pull-release mode without first firing the second (release) shot. (Compl. ¶21; ’461 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a trigger group that uses a single selector, located outside the trigger guard, to toggle between three modes: safe, standard semi-automatic, and pull-release ("binary") fire. The design allows a user to return the firearm to the safe position even after the trigger has been pulled in binary mode, thereby preventing the mandatory discharge of the second round upon release. (Compl. ¶22; ’461 Patent, col. 2:58-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a safer and more versatile user interface for the popular pull-release firing functionality by resolving key safety deficiencies of earlier designs. (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 5, 7, and 8. (Compl. ¶46).
  • Reexamined Independent Claim 1 contains the following essential elements:
    • A trigger group for a firearm comprising a hammer, a trigger element, and a movable sear.
    • A selector movable between a first (semi-auto), second (pull-release), and third (safe) position.
    • A disconnector assembly with a "plurality of disconnector hooks" to "selectably engage" a second hammer hook.
    • The disconnector assembly operates in the first position to retain the hammer after a single shot (standard semi-automatic function).
    • The disconnector assembly operates in the second position to release the hammer on both the pull and release of the trigger (binary function).
    • The "selector operating" in the third position "to prevent discharge of the firearm."
    • The selector is rotatable about a single axis.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "New 3 POSITION SAFE-SEMI-FOPAR" trigger group ("FOPAR Trigger"), sold as an installation kit and pre-installed in AR-15 pattern lower receivers. (Compl. ¶39, 41).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused FOPAR Trigger is described as having a three-position selector providing: Position 1 (Safe), Position 2 (Standard Semi-Automatic Fire), and Position 3 (Fire on Pull and Release). (Compl. ¶39; Compl. Ex. C, p. 47). This functionality mirrors the three modes described in the ’461 Patent. A screenshot from the Defendant's website shows the advertised three modes of the accused product. (Compl. Ex. C, p. 47).
  • Defendants provide customers with written instructions and videos on how to install the trigger kit, which involves removing the firearm's existing trigger components and replacing them with the FOPAR Trigger components. (Compl. ¶42-43). The complaint includes a diagram from the Defendants' installation guide, which visually depicts the trigger, hammer, and disconnector components of the accused kit. (Compl. ¶42).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendants market the FOPAR Trigger as a direct, lower-cost alternative to Plaintiff's "Binary" trigger products, citing marketing language such as "Fires On Pull And Release (FOPAR) … For A Whole Lot Less Than ‘Those Guys’." (Compl. ¶44).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'461 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Reexamined 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 FOPAR Trigger kit includes a hammer component that is installed in a firearm to perform these functions as part of the trigger mechanism. ¶39, 42 col. 4:63-65
a trigger element movable by a user between a rest position and an actuated position; The FOPAR Trigger kit includes a trigger element that the user pulls to initiate firing. ¶39, 42 col. 5:11-16
a movable sear responsive to movement of the trigger element and operable to engage the first hammer hook... The FOPAR Trigger's sear mechanism is alleged to engage the hammer to hold it in the cocked position and release it upon a trigger pull. ¶39, 42 col. 5:11-16
a selector movable between at least a first position, a second position, and a third position; The accused FOPAR Trigger is explicitly advertised as a "3 POSITION TRIGGER" with settings for SAFE, SEMI-AUTOMATIC, and FIRE ON PULL AND RELEASE. ¶39 col. 8:36-41
a disconnector assembly operably connected to the selector and comprising a plurality of disconnector hooks configured to selectably engage the second hammer hook; The FOPAR Trigger kit includes a disconnector assembly that interacts with the selector to engage the hammer differently in each mode. ¶39, 42 col. 8:42-45
the disconnector assembly operable when the selector is in the first position to retain the hammer... such that the firearm discharges once per cycle... This corresponds to the FOPAR Trigger’s "POSITION 2= STANDARD SEMI AUTOMATIC FIRE" mode. ¶39 col. 8:46-52
the disconnector assembly operable when the selector is in the second position to release the hammer... twice for each rearward-forward motion sequence of the trigger element... This corresponds to the FOPAR Trigger’s "POSITION 3= FIRE ON PULL AND RELEASE" mode. ¶39 col. 8:53-64
the selector operating when... in the third position to prevent discharge of the firearm... This corresponds to the FOPAR Trigger’s "POSITION 1=SAFE" mode. ¶39 col. 9:1-5
wherein the selector is rotatable about a single axis. The FOPAR Trigger's selector switch is a standard rotating component installed in the firearm's lower receiver. ¶39, 42 col. 9:6-7

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Question: A key issue may be whether the FOPAR trigger's safety mechanism meets the reexamined claim limitation "selector operating when... in the third position to prevent discharge." This language, which shifted the operative component from the "disconnector assembly" in the original claim to the "selector," raises the question of whether the FOPAR's selector itself performs the blocking function, or if it merely manipulates other components (like the sear or disconnector) to create a safe condition. The distinction could be critical to the infringement analysis.
  • Technical Question: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of whether the accused FOPAR disconnector assembly contains a "plurality of disconnector hooks" as required by the reexamined claim. The court will need to examine the physical structure of the accused device to determine if it meets this limitation, which was a key amendment during reexamination.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "selector operating... to prevent discharge of the firearm"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation was added during reexamination, replacing language that attributed the safe-mode function to the "disconnector assembly." Its construction is critical because infringement will depend on whether the accused FOPAR trigger's safety function is deemed to be performed by the "selector" as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the change in language during prosecution could suggest a deliberate narrowing of the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term covers a selector that indirectly causes the safe condition by interacting with other components. The specification describes the selector having cam lobes that engage other parts of the trigger group to achieve different functions, which may support an interpretation where "operating" includes causing other parts to act. ('461 Patent, col. 5:46-53, describing cam lobe 78 restricting trigger movement).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that because the claim was amended to shift this function from the "disconnector assembly" to the "selector," the term must be limited to a selector that directly blocks the firearm's firing mechanism, rather than one that merely acts on the disconnector.

  • The Term: "a plurality of disconnector hooks"

  • Context and Importance: This language was also central to the amendments made during reexamination. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the physical components of the accused FOPAR disconnector mechanism constitute a "plurality of hooks."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification shows embodiments with two distinct disconnector components working in concert: a semi-automatic disconnector (50) and a binary disconnector (38), each with its own hook. ('461 Patent, Fig. 1, col. 8:35-41). A party may argue that this combination of components constitutes the claimed "plurality."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that the term requires multiple hook features on a single, integrated component, or that the specific geometry of the accused product's engagement surfaces does not qualify as a "hook" as depicted and described in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Defendants provide customers with written materials and instruction videos on their websites that direct users to install and operate the FOPAR Trigger in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶55). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the FOPAR Trigger kit is a material component of the patented invention, is specially adapted for use in an infringing system, and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶57).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the ’461 Patent that Defendants "have gained... through the filing of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶50). This is an allegation of post-filing willfulness. The complaint does not allege that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent itself, although it does detail pre-suit communications regarding an unrelated trademark dispute. (Compl. ¶31-37).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope post-reexamination: Can the phrase "selector operating...to prevent discharge," which was added during reexamination, be construed to cover a selector that indirectly creates a safe condition by acting on other components, or is it limited to a selector that performs the blocking function directly? The outcome will depend heavily on the prosecution history and the specific mechanics of the accused FOPAR trigger.
  • A second central question will be factual and evidentiary: Does the accused FOPAR trigger's disconnector mechanism physically embody "a plurality of disconnector hooks" as required by the amended claims? This will require a detailed technical comparison between the accused product's design and the patent's description and figures.