DCT
1:22-cv-00280
Rare Breed TRIGGERS LLC v. Strbac
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rare Breed TRIGGERS LLC (North Dakota) and ABC IP LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Mladen Thomas “Tom” Strbac, d/b/a TOMMY TRIGGERS (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wood Herron & Evans LLP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00280, N.D. Ohio, 02/21/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant resides in and has a regular and established place of business within the Northern District of Ohio.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s forced reset triggers for AR-15 pattern firearms infringe a patent related to a trigger mechanism that uses the firearm's cycle of operation to reset the trigger.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns firearm trigger mechanisms designed to increase the potential rate of fire in semiautomatic firearms by mechanically forcing the trigger to reset after each shot.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a cease and desist letter to the Defendant on January 17, 2022, providing notice of the patent-in-suit and the infringement allegations prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-29 | ’223 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-12-24 | ’223 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-12-XX | Plaintiff's FRT-15™ trigger introduced to market |
| 2022-01-17 | Plaintiffs send cease and desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-02-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued December 24, 2019.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the desire of some firearm users to increase the rate of semiautomatic fire. It notes that standard semiautomatic triggers include a "disconnector" that prevents the hammer from falling again until the user manually releases and resets the trigger, which limits the firing speed (’223 Patent, col. 1:25-35). Prior art solutions, such as "bump firing" accessories or pull/release triggers, are described as requiring practice to use reliably, being complex, or expensive to manufacture and install (’223 Patent, col. 1:40-54, col. 2:12-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trigger mechanism that eliminates the need for a traditional disconnector. Instead, as the firearm's bolt carrier cycles rearward after firing, it re-cocks the hammer, and the hammer's movement in turn "forcibly resets the trigger" by making physical contact with a surface on the trigger member (’223 Patent, col. 2:39-44). To prevent the hammer from simply "following" the bolt carrier forward without firing, a "locking bar" mechanically blocks the trigger from being pulled again until the bolt carrier has returned to its "substantially in-battery position" (’223 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:38-54).
- Technical Importance: This design is presented as a "drop-in" replacement module that can be retrofitted into popular firearm platforms like the AR-15 without modifying other standard components, such as the bolt carrier (’223 Patent, col. 2:30-41).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 4 (Compl. ¶58).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 4 include:
- A housing with openings for hammer and trigger assembly pins.
- A hammer with a sear notch, pivotally mounted in the housing.
- A trigger member with a sear, also pivotally mounted, which has a surface positioned to be contacted by the cycling hammer, causing the trigger member to be forced to its set position.
- A locking bar, pivotally mounted and spring-biased, that (1) mechanically blocks the trigger member in a first position and (2) is movable to a second, un-blocked position when contacted by the bolt carrier upon its return to a "substantially in-battery position."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references infringement of "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶55).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Tommy Triggers FRT-15-3MD" line of forced reset triggers and a conversion kit called “The Ultimate Upgrade for the Rare Breed Trigger” (collectively, the "Infringing Devices") (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 47).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Infringing Devices are "forced reset trigger models" that operate by "using the hammer to forcibly reset the trigger" and use a "locking bar" to prevent the trigger from being pulled until the bolt carrier's forward action disengages the bar (Compl. ¶50). A photograph provided in the complaint shows the accused FRT-15-3MD trigger assembly, which appears visually similar to the patent's embodiment (Compl. ¶44, p. 11). The complaint also alleges that the accused FRT-15-3MD includes a multi-position selector to switch between a safe mode, a standard semiautomatic mode with a disconnector, and a forced reset mode, a feature Plaintiff claims will be part of its own future product (Compl. ¶45).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’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 accused triggers include a housing with transversely aligned pin openings. An annotated image in the complaint points to the "Housing" and "Transversely aligned pairs of openings" on the accused device (Compl. p. 17). | ¶60 | col. 6:61-63 |
| a hammer having a sear notch and mounted in the housing to pivot on a transverse axis between set and released positions; | The accused triggers include a hammer with a sear notch that pivots on a transverse axis. An annotated image shows the accused "Hammer," "Sear notch," and "Transverse axis" in both set and released positions (Compl. pp. 17-18). | ¶60 | col. 6:64-67 |
| a trigger member having a sear and mounted in the housing to pivot on a transverse axis...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 accused triggers include a trigger member with a sear. The complaint alleges that during the firing cycle, the hammer contacts a surface on the trigger member, forcing it to the set position. An annotated image highlights the "Surface contacted by hammer" on the accused trigger member (Compl. p. 18). | ¶60 | col. 7:1-6 |
| 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...and movable against the spring bias to a second position when contacted by the bolt carrier reaching a substantially in-battery position... | The accused triggers include a locking bar that is pivotally mounted and spring-biased. This bar allegedly blocks the trigger member and is moved to an un-blocked position when the bolt carrier returns to battery. Annotated diagrams illustrate the "Locking bar," "Pivot," and "Spring" in both the blocking ("FIRST POSITION") and un-blocked ("SECOND POSITION") states (Compl. pp. 19-20). | ¶60 | col. 8:6-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "substantially in-battery position." The infringement analysis will depend on the precise timing of when the accused locking bar is disengaged relative to the bolt carrier's forward travel and whether that timing falls within the scope of this claim term.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused devices "operate identically" to the patented invention (Compl. ¶44). A key factual question for the court will be whether the specific mechanical interactions in the accused device—particularly the geometry of the hammer's contact surface with the trigger and the locking bar's engagement with the trigger—perform the functions specified in the claim in the same way as described in the patent. The evidence must show that contact with the hammer is what causes the trigger to be "forced to the set position," as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "substantially in-battery position"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the critical timing for when the locking bar disengages to permit the next shot. Its construction will determine how close the bolt carrier must be to its fully locked, forward position before the trigger can be pulled again. This is central to both infringement (does the accused device meet this timing?) and potentially validity (does this distinguish the invention from prior art?).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the locking bar is disengaged "as the bolt carrier assembly 52 approaches or reaches its in-battery position" (’223 Patent, col. 6:7-9). The word "approaches" may suggest a broader temporal window before the bolt is fully locked.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes the event as occurring when the bolt carrier "has reached (or nearly reached) its closed, in-battery position" (’223 Patent, col. 5:55-57). The parenthetical "(or nearly reached)" could be interpreted as requiring the bolt to be extremely close to its final position, supporting a narrower construction.
The Term: "mechanically blocks"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the function of the locking bar. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the "block" is key to the invention's safety feature of preventing "hammer follow" (’223 Patent, col. 5:48-50). The dispute may turn on whether the accused locking bar creates a positive, physical obstruction as implied by "mechanically blocks," or operates in a different manner.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the precise manner of blocking, only that it "mechanically blocks the trigger member from moving to the released position" (’223 Patent, col. 8:8-9). This could arguably encompass any form of mechanical obstruction that achieves the stated function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and description show a specific interaction where the locking bar (62) physically prevents pivotal movement of the trigger member (26) (’223 Patent, col. 5:38-46; FIG. 5). A defendant might argue this specific embodiment limits the term to a direct, positive stop, as opposed to another form of mechanical interference.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s “Ultimate Upgrade for the Rare Breed Trigger” kit induces and contributes to infringement. It alleges inducement because when customers assemble the kit "as instructed by Defendant," the resulting assembly directly infringes (’223 Patent, ¶¶ 48, 62). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the kit is a material part of the invention, is especially made for an infringing use, and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 63).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged "defiance of Rare Breed’s demand letter in advance of commercial sale of the Infringing Device" (Compl. ¶56). The letter, sent on January 17, 2022, allegedly provided Defendant with pre-suit knowledge of the ’223 Patent and the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "substantially in-battery position," which governs the timing of the safety release, be construed to read on the precise moment the accused product's locking bar is disengaged? The patent's use of both "approaches" and "nearly reached" provides potential grounds for dispute over the term's breadth.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused trigger's mechanism operate in the specific manner claimed? The case may turn on technical evidence demonstrating whether the accused hammer's movement is the direct cause of the trigger being "forced to the set position" and whether the accused locking bar "mechanically blocks" the trigger in a way that is legally equivalent to the mechanism described in the patent.
- A third question relates to commercial imitation: given the allegations that the accused product includes a three-mode selector—a feature Plaintiffs claim to have developed for a future product—the court may examine evidence regarding the Defendant's development process and awareness of Plaintiffs' activities as it pertains to the question of willful infringement.