DCT
3:25-cv-00201
ABC IP LLC v. Hanes Tactical LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ABC IP, LLC (Delaware) and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. (Texas)
- Defendant: Hanes Tactical LLC (Texas) and Damion Terrell Bennett (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eggleston King Davis LLP; Wood Herron & Evans LLP
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00201, W.D. Tex., 10/29/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants reside and have a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ "Super Safety" firearm components contributorily infringe and induce infringement of two patents related to "forced reset" trigger mechanisms.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves firearm trigger mechanisms that use the force of a weapon's reciprocating bolt carrier to mechanically reset the trigger, enabling a faster rate of fire than conventional semi-automatic systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the older of the two patents-in-suit, the '723 Patent, had previously lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees before being reinstated in May 2022 and subsequently expired in September 2024. Plaintiffs also allege sending a cease and desist letter to Defendants in March 2025, a fact which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-04-25 | ’723 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-07-15 | ’723 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-05-16 | ’723 Patent Reinstated After Lapse |
| 2022-09-08 | ’247 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-01-31 | Alleged Offer for Sale of Accused Product |
| 2024-07-16 | ’247 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-09-22 | ’723 Patent Expiration Date |
| 2025-03-28 | Cease and Desist Letter Sent to Defendants |
| 2025-10-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 - “Firearm Trigger Mechanism” (Issued Jul. 16, 2024)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a desire among firearm users to increase the rate of semi-automatic fire, noting the limitations and drawbacks of prior methods like "bump firing" and existing mechanical devices that may require modified bolt carriers (’247 Patent, col. 1:41-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a "drop-in" trigger mechanism for AR-pattern firearms that offers three user-selectable modes: safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset semi-automatic (’247 Patent, Abstract). In the forced reset mode, the rearward movement of the firearm's bolt carrier causes a pivoting cam to force the trigger member back to its set position, allowing for rapid subsequent shots without the user needing to manually release the trigger (’247 Patent, col. 2:55-col. 3:10). A key aspect is the role of the safety selector, which, when in the forced reset position, mechanically prevents the disconnector from engaging the hammer, thereby enabling the forced reset cycle (’247 Patent, col. 8:55-65).
- Technical Importance: The invention purports to offer a modular, selectable system for increasing the rate of fire in a standard AR-pattern firearm without requiring modification to major components like the bolt carrier (’247 Patent, col. 2:18-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 15 (Compl. ¶44).
- Essential elements of Claim 15 include:
- A hammer with a sear catch and a hook for a disconnector.
- A trigger member with a sear.
- A disconnector with a hook for the hammer.
- A movable cam with a cam lobe.
- A "standard semi-automatic mode" where the cam is in a first position and the disconnector hook catches the hammer hook, requiring a manual trigger release.
- A "forced reset semi-automatic mode" where the cam is in a second position and the disconnector hook is prevented from catching the hammer hook, allowing the user to fire again without a manual trigger release.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,398,723 - “Trigger Forward Displacement System and Method” (Issued Jul. 15, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background discusses the desire to increase the cyclic firing rate of semi-automatic firearms and describes prior art devices as having various limitations (’723 Patent, col. 1:12-34).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method for accelerating the firing cycle. After the user depresses the trigger, the firearm's reciprocating mechanism (e.g., the bolt carrier) is activated. This mechanism causes a cam to undergo a "single rotational motion," which "simultaneously push[es] the trigger forward into a ready to fire position and hold[s] the trigger forward" until the reciprocating mechanism is approximately closed and ready to fire again (’723 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:18-24).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes a method of using the internal action of the firearm to mechanically force a trigger reset, providing a foundational concept for later forced-reset trigger designs (Compl. ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- Essential steps of Claim 1 include:
- Depressing a firearm trigger with a finger to discharge the firearm.
- Activating a reciprocating mechanism within the firearm.
- The reciprocating mechanism causes a cam, in a single rotational motion, to simultaneously push the trigger forward to a ready-to-fire position and hold it there.
- This hold is maintained until the reciprocating mechanism has reached an approximately closed, ready-to-fire position.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "Super Safety" (3 Position), which is sold as a component kit (Compl. ¶28, ¶34).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the "Super Safety" is a kit containing a specially made cam, a cam lever that replaces a standard AR-pattern safety selector, and a specially cut trigger member (Compl. ¶34). When these components are installed in a standard AR-pattern firearm, they allegedly create a trigger mechanism with multiple modes of operation: a standard semi-automatic mode using a disconnector and a forced reset semi-automatic mode (Compl. ¶39-40). The complaint includes a screenshot from social media of gold-plated versions of the accused components, suggesting a commercial product offering (Compl. p. 7). The products are allegedly offered for sale via Facebook posts and direct messaging (Compl. ¶33).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'247 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a hammer having a sear catch and a hook for engaging a disconnector... | The device is installed with a standard hammer that has a sear catch and a hook for engaging a disconnector. | ¶45 (p. 10) | col. 7:45-48 |
| a trigger member having a sear... | The device is installed with a trigger member that has a sear and pivots between set and released positions. | ¶45 (p. 12) | col. 7:50-57 |
| said disconnector having a hook for engaging said hammer... | The device uses a disconnector adapted to be mounted in the fire control pocket and having a hook for engaging the hammer. | ¶45 (p. 12) | col. 7:63-66 |
| a cam having a cam lobe and adapted to be movably mounted... said cam being movable between a first position and a second position... | The device has a cam with a cam lobe that is movably mounted and movable between first and second positions. | ¶45 (p. 13) | col. 8:3-14 |
| whereupon in a standard semi-automatic mode, said cam is in said first position... said disconnector hook catches said hammer hook... | In standard mode, the cam is in a first position, and rearward bolt carrier movement causes the disconnector hook to catch the hammer hook. A visual diagram illustrates this engagement (Compl. p. 14). | ¶45 (p. 14) | col. 8:49-65 |
| whereupon in a forced reset semi-automatic mode, said cam is in said second position... said disconnector hook is prevented from catching said hammer hook... | In forced reset mode, the cam is in the second position, and rearward bolt carrier movement occurs such that the disconnector hook does not catch the hammer hook. A diagram shows the disconnector blocked from engaging the hammer (Compl. p. 15). | ¶45 (p. 15) | col. 9:26-44 |
'723 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| depressing a firearm trigger with a finger to discharge the firearm; | When installed and used as instructed, depressing the trigger causes the firearm to discharge. | ¶55 (p. 17) | col. 12:18-19 |
| activating a reciprocating mechanism within the firearm that causes a cam, in a single rotational motion of the cam, to simultaneously push the trigger forward into a ready to fire position and hold the trigger forward... | When the firearm is discharged, the bolt carrier assembly is activated, causing the cam to push and hold the trigger forward. A diagram depicts the cam holding the trigger in the forward, reset position (Compl. p. 18). | ¶55 (p. 18) | col. 10:11-18 |
| until the reciprocating mechanism has reached an approximately closed, ready to fire position. | The trigger is held forward by the cam until the bolt carrier has reached an approximately closed position. | ¶55 (p. 18) | col. 10:18-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: For the ’247 Patent, a central question may be whether the accused "Super Safety," which allegedly replaces and functions as the safety selector, meets the claim limitation of a "cam." The patent figures depict the "cam" (72) and the "safety selector" (110) as structurally distinct components, which could support an argument that a single component performing both functions is outside the claim scope.
- Technical Questions: For the ’723 Patent, the analysis may focus on the precise timing and nature of the trigger reset. Questions could be raised as to whether the cam's motion constitutes a "single rotational motion" and whether it truly "holds" the trigger forward for the duration required by the claim—"until the reciprocating mechanism has reached an approximately closed... position"—or if the interaction is functionally different.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "cam" ('247 Patent, Claim 15)
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’247 Patent hinges on the accused "Super Safety" being the claimed "cam." Because the accused product replaces the firearm's safety selector, its equivalence to the claimed "cam" will likely be a central point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the cam as a movable component that pivots on a pin and has a lobe (78) for interacting with the trigger and contact surfaces (82, 84) for interacting with the bolt carrier (’247 Patent, col. 8:3-14). Plaintiffs may argue that any component performing these functions, regardless of its other roles, is a "cam" as claimed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures of the ’247 Patent consistently depict the "cam" (72) and the "safety selector" (110) as two separate and distinct parts with different functions (’247 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 8:43-65). Defendants may argue that the patent teaches a system with both a cam and a safety selector, and that a single component which is the safety selector cannot also be the claimed cam.
The Term: "simultaneously push... and hold" ('723 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core action of the claimed method. Whether the accused device performs a "push" and a "hold" as simultaneous actions, as opposed to a single continuous push that results in a held state, could be critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the cam action as "simultaneously push[ing] the trigger forward... and hold[ing] the trigger forward," suggesting a single, unified mechanical event initiated by the bolt carrier (’723 Patent, Abstract). Plaintiffs may argue "simultaneously" should be interpreted to mean "as part of the same continuous action."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants could argue for a stricter definition, suggesting that "push" and "hold" are distinct actions that must begin at the same instant. They might contend their device provides a momentary push, and the geometry of the parts results in a temporary static state (a hold), but that these are sequential effects of one action, not simultaneous actions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint is founded on allegations of indirect infringement. It alleges contributory infringement by asserting that Defendants sell components that are "especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement" and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶36, ¶46). It also alleges induced infringement by claiming Defendants instruct customers on how to assemble these parts into an infringing final product (Compl. ¶38, ¶47).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' continued infringing activities after receiving a cease and desist letter from Plaintiffs' counsel on March 28, 2025 (Compl. ¶18, ¶42, ¶61).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cam" as recited in the ’247 Patent, which is depicted in the specification as a component distinct from the "safety selector," be construed to read on the accused "Super Safety" product, which itself functions as a safety selector?
- A second key issue will be one of technical operation: does the accused device, when performing the accused method of infringement of the ’723 Patent, perform the specific functions of "simultaneously" pushing and holding the trigger, and does it maintain that hold until the bolt carrier has reached the "approximately closed" position as required by the claim?
- The case will also depend on evidence of intent for indirect infringement: can Plaintiffs demonstrate that the "Super Safety" components have no substantial non-infringing use and that Defendants specifically intended for their customers to assemble the parts to create a combination that infringes the patents-in-suit?