DCT
4:22-cv-00107
ABC IP LLC v. Valor Mfg LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rare Breed Triggers, LLC (North Dakota) and ABC IP, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Thomas Allen Graves, et al. (Oklahoma)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wood Herron & Evans LLP
- Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00107, USDC ND/OK, 06/15/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as all defendants reside in and/or have a regular and established place of business within the Northern District of Oklahoma.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ "ALAMO-15" firearm trigger infringes a patent related to a forced-reset semiautomatic trigger mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns firearm trigger mechanisms designed to increase the rate of fire in semiautomatic platforms, such as the AR-15, by using the firearm's own action to mechanically reset the trigger.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent cease and desist letters to Defendant Thomas Graves in August 2021 and to other Defendant entities in November 2021, prior to the February 2022 launch of the accused product. The complaint also details a prior business relationship wherein an inventor of the patent-in-suit, via Wolf Tactical, licensed other trigger-related patents from Defendant Graves.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-29 | U.S. Patent 10,514,223 Priority Date |
| 2019-12-24 | U.S. Patent 10,514,223 Issued |
| 2020-12-01 | Plaintiff's FRT-15 Trigger Introduced (approx.) |
| 2021-08-30 | Cease and Desist Letter Sent to Defendant Graves |
| 2021-11-18 | Cease and Desist Letter Sent to Defendant Valor Arms Co. |
| 2022-02-25 | Defendants' ALAMO-15 Trigger Offered for Sale (approx.) |
| 2022-06-15 | Complaint 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's background section describes the limitations of standard semiautomatic triggers, which require a user to manually release the trigger to achieve a reset, thereby limiting the potential rate of fire. It also notes that prior art solutions to increase firing speed, such as "bump firing" or pull/release triggers, can be complex, expensive, or require significant user practice to be effective. (’223 Patent, col. 1:17-34, col. 2:1-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trigger mechanism that uses the force of the firearm’s cycling bolt carrier to not only re-cock the hammer but also to forcibly push the trigger back into its reset position. As described in the detailed description, this is achieved by direct mechanical contact between the hammer and a surface on the trigger member. A separate, novel "locking bar" then prevents the trigger from being pulled again until the bolt carrier has fully returned to its "in-battery" position, which obviates the need for a traditional disconnector and prevents "hammer follow." (’223 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-48, col. 5:31-38).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for substantially increasing the rate of semiautomatic fire via a "drop-in" module that can be retrofitted into popular firearm platforms without requiring modification to other major components. (’223 Patent, col. 2:30-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 4. (Compl. ¶89).
- The essential elements of independent claim 4 are:
- A housing with transversely aligned pin openings.
- A hammer with a sear notch, pivotally mounted in the housing.
- A trigger member with a sear, pivotally mounted in the housing, and having a surface that is contacted by the hammer during the firing cycle, which forces the trigger member to its set position.
- A locking bar, pivotally mounted and spring-biased, that (a) in a first position, mechanically blocks the trigger member from moving to the released position, and (b) is movable to a second position by the bolt carrier when it is in-battery, allowing the trigger to be pulled.
- The complaint notes that infringement is alleged directly and/or through the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶89).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "PBG ALAMO-15" trigger assembly. (Compl. ¶29).
Functionality and Market Context
- The ALAMO-15 is alleged to be a "drop-in" replacement trigger assembly for AR-pattern firearms. (Compl. ¶58). The complaint alleges it functions by "using the hammer contact to forcibly reset the trigger and preventing the trigger from being pulled again until the forward action of the bolt carrier disengages the locking bar from the trigger." (Compl. ¶60). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused product's internal components, showing a trigger, hammer, and a part alleged to be the locking bar. (Compl. ¶59). It is also alleged that the accused device includes a "roller on the locking bar," which Plaintiffs characterize as an additional feature that does not avoid infringement. (Compl. ¶38, ¶92).
- The complaint alleges the ALAMO-15 was launched to directly compete with Plaintiffs' own FRT-15™ trigger and to "unlawfully displace sales" of the patented product. (Compl. ¶26, ¶94).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’223 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| For a firearm having a receiver with a fire control mechanism pocket, assembly pin openings in side walls of the pocket, and a bolt carrier that reciprocates and pivotally displaces a hammer when cycled, a trigger mechanism, comprising: | The ALAMO-15 is a trigger mechanism for an AR-pattern firearm, which has a receiver, fire control pocket, pin openings, and a reciprocating bolt carrier. | ¶90 | col. 4:35-50 |
| a housing having transversely aligned pairs of openings for receiving hammer and trigger assembly pins; | The accused device includes a housing with transversely aligned pairs of openings for receiving the assembly pins. | ¶90 | col. 3:35-43 |
| a hammer having a sear notch and mounted in the housing to pivot on a transverse axis between set and released positions; | The accused device includes a hammer with a sear notch, mounted to pivot on a transverse axis. An image provided in the complaint identifies the sear notch on the accused hammer. (Compl. ¶90, p. 25). | ¶90 | col. 4:25-28 |
| 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 accused device's trigger member has a sear and a surface that is contacted by the hammer during cycling, forcing the trigger to its set position. A diagram in the complaint illustrates this alleged contact. (Compl. ¶90, p. 27). | ¶90 | col. 5:31-38 |
| 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 in which the trigger member can be moved by an external force to the released position. | The accused device includes a pivotally mounted, spring-biased locking bar that blocks the trigger, and is moved by the bolt carrier to unblock the trigger when the bolt is in battery. The complaint alleges the addition of a roller wheel to this component does not avoid infringement. (Compl. ¶38, ¶92). | ¶90 | col. 5:1-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint preemptively addresses the presence of a "roller on the locking bar" in the accused device, arguing it is an addition that does not alter the infringing nature of the component. (Compl. ¶38, ¶92). A central technical question will be whether the addition of this roller changes the fundamental operation of the component, or if it still functions as the "locking bar" described in the claim. What evidence demonstrates that the accused component, with its roller, "mechanically blocks the trigger member" in the specific manner claimed?
- Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the proper interpretation of "locking bar." Does the term, as defined by the patent, read on the accused component that includes a roller? The patent describes the locking bar as having an "upper end" that is "engaged by the engagement surface 54 of the bolt carrier body 58" (’223 Patent, col. 4:65-68, col. 5:1-3), raising the question of whether an intermediary roller alters this claimed interaction.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "locking bar"
- Context and Importance: This element is the core safety feature of the invention, replacing the traditional disconnector and ensuring the firearm only fires when the bolt is safely in battery. The Defendants' product allegedly includes this component but with a modification (a roller), making the construction of this term critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses functional language, describing the bar as being "pivotally mounted," "spring biased," and performing the functions of "mechanically block[ing]" the trigger and being "movable...when contacted by the bolt carrier." A party could argue that any structure performing these recited functions, regardless of minor additions like a roller, falls within the scope of the term.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes and depicts a specific embodiment, "locking bar 62," which is a single piece of metal that makes direct contact with the bolt carrier. (’223 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:60-68). A party could argue the term should be limited to a structure substantially similar to this depiction, which does not include a roller as an intermediary contact surface.
The Term: "a surface positioned to be contacted by the hammer ... the contact causing the trigger member to be forced to the set position"
- Context and Importance: This language describes the "forced reset" mechanism, a key point of novelty. The infringement case rests on showing that the accused ALAMO-15 trigger operates via this specific hammer-on-trigger interaction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is relatively broad, requiring only "a surface" on the trigger and "contact" by the hammer that results in a reset. This could be argued to cover a wide range of interaction geometries.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains this interaction with more specificity, noting "mechanical interference or contact between a rear surface 74 of the hammer 18 (such as on the tail portion 44) and a contact surface 30 of the trigger member 26 forces the trigger to pivot." (’223 Patent, col. 5:33-38). A party might argue that the term should be construed to require this specific type of interaction between the hammer's tail and a dedicated contact surface on the trigger.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by Defendants. The factual basis includes promotional videos allegedly featuring Defendant Graves that instruct viewers on how to purchase and, by extension, use the accused device. (Compl. ¶¶ 68-71). The complaint provides screenshots from these videos, which display URLs for purchasing the product. (Compl. ¶70-71).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement. The basis for this allegation is pre-suit knowledge of the ’223 Patent. Plaintiffs allege they sent cease and desist letters to Defendant Graves on August 30, 2021, and to Defendant Valor Arms on November 18, 2021, months before the accused ALAMO-15 was allegedly first offered for sale on February 25, 2022. (Compl. ¶¶ 27-29, 66).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of component equivalence: does the accused "locking bar," which includes a roller wheel, perform the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the "locking bar" claimed in the patent? The court's determination will likely depend on whether the roller is seen as a mere addition to an otherwise infringing component or as a modification that fundamentally alters its structure and operation.
- A related question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "locking bar", as described and depicted in the ’223 Patent, be construed to cover a component that uses a roller as an intermediary surface for interacting with the bolt carrier, or is it limited to the direct metal-on-metal contact shown in the patent's embodiments?
- Finally, a key factual question for willfulness will be the defendants' state of mind: given the explicit allegations of receiving cease-and-desist letters months before launching the accused product, what evidence will show whether defendants proceeded with a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity, versus a deliberate disregard for the plaintiff's asserted patent rights?