PTAB

IPR2025-01473

ATrius Development Group Corp v. ABC IP LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Firearm Trigger Mechanism with Multi-Position Selector
  • Brief Description: The ’247 patent describes a forced reset trigger (FRT) mechanism for AR-pattern firearms. The invention features a three-position safety selector that allows a user to choose between safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset semi-automatic modes of fire.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-23 are obvious over Blakely in view of PP_FRT-15-3MR

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blakely (Patent 7,398,723) and PP_FRT-15-3MR (a collection of disclosures including the Bingly YouTube videos (Exs. 1005-1007) and a publicly filed Complaint (Ex. 1008)).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Blakely taught all elements of a basic FRT mechanism as claimed, including a hammer, a trigger member, a disconnector, and a cam that forces the trigger to reset upon rearward movement of the bolt carrier. However, Blakely only disclosed a two-position selector (safe and FRT mode). Petitioner asserted that PP_FRT-15-3MR disclosed the missing limitation: a three-position safety selector for use with an FRT that enables safe, standard semi-automatic, and FRT modes. This selector works by using a wide semi-circular portion to block the trigger in safe mode, a flat portion to allow normal trigger and disconnector function in semi-automatic mode, and a narrow semi-circular portion to disable the disconnector in FRT mode.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine Blakely's FRT with the three-position selector of PP_FRT-15-3MR to provide users with a desirable semi-automatic fire mode. This mode improves accuracy, conserves ammunition, and is often required at shooting ranges, mimicking the versatile functionality of the standard M-16 rifle from which the AR-15 is derived. Blakely itself suggested contemplating a three-position selector, providing further motivation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The proposed modification involves adding a known selector switch geometry to a known type of trigger mechanism to achieve a predictable function. The method for disabling a disconnector with a safety selector was well-understood from the M-16's design, making the integration straightforward for a person skilled in the art.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the combination would resolve disadvantages in the PP_FRT-15-3MR design (where the hammer resets the trigger) by adopting the more elegant cam-based reset mechanism from Blakely.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted two similar obviousness challenges against claims 1-23, varying only in the specific combination of the Bingly videos and the Complaint relied upon to teach the three-position safety selector. The core arguments and motivation to combine remained identical across all grounds.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "trigger member": Petitioner argued that the term "trigger member" should be construed to encompass both a single, unitary structure (as shown in the ’247 patent's embodiment) and a multi-piece assembly. This construction was based on the specification's incorporation by reference of Patent 10,514,223 (Rounds), which explicitly described a two-piece trigger member. This construction is critical because the primary prior art, Blakely, discloses a two-piece trigger member comprising a trigger and a "trigger extender."

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date of Claims 14-23: Petitioner contended that claims 14-23 were not entitled to the priority date of the provisional application. These claims were amended during prosecution to recite a "movably mounted" cam, whereas the provisional application only disclosed a "pivotably mounted" cam. Petitioner asserted this change constituted new matter added to capture a competitor's product and, therefore, the effective filing date for these claims should be the filing date of the non-provisional application, making additional prior art available.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) - Advanced Bionics: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting that the Examiner did not consider the most critical prior art. While the Examiner reviewed Blakely, the references disclosing the key missing element—the three-position safety selector for an FRT (the Bingly videos and the Complaint)—were not presented or considered during prosecution. Petitioner alleged that the patent owner's counsel was aware of this art but failed to disclose it.
  • §314(a) - Fintiv: Petitioner argued that denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate because the six parallel district court litigations are in their earliest preliminary stages. At the time of filing, discovery had not commenced, claim construction had not been scheduled, and trial dates were distant. Therefore, an IPR would be a more efficient and expert forum for resolving the validity of the challenged claims.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’247 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.