Patent Enforcement with DOJ Backing: Rare Breed’s Forced-Reset Trigger Campaign

by Dennis Crouch

On September 10, the Federal Circuit heard argument in ABC IP, LLC v. Peak Tactical, LLC, No. 26-1527, Rare Breed Triggers' appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction against the "Disruptor," a $299 forced-reset trigger (FRT) for AR-15 rifles that Peak Tactical launched under the Partisan Triggers name. (Compare with the patentee's version for $450). Ordinary AR-15 rifles require that the trigger be manually pulled for each shot, but the FRT modification effectively turns the gun into a machinegun. The shooter just maintains pressure on the trigger and the gun will keep firing.

Chief Judge Kelly Rankin (D. Wyo.) found that all four preliminary injunction factors weighed against relief. His likelihood-of-success analysis rested largely on a claim-construction dispute that he identified but did not resolve: what "substantially in-battery position" means. At oral argument, the panel (Judges Lourie, Linn, and Chen) pressed both sides. My read is that the district court erred by first failing to resolve the claim construction and then treating the unresolved construction dispute as a reason to deny relief. But the panel is likely to affirm anyway because Rare Breed offered too little evidence of irreparable harm. Truthfully, though, I didn't explore the details of the evidence presented. And the case raises a question: can we infer irreparable harm based simply upon evidence that the accused device is a copy of the patentee's product?

The appeal is one piece of a much larger campaign. In May 2025, the Department of Justice settled its long fight over whether forced-reset triggers are illegal machineguns. Rare Breed obtained federal non-enforcement for qualifying triggers and agreed to seek injunctions against other sellers who violated its patents; DOJ agreed to consider filing statements supporting those injunctions. Rare Breed and its patent-holding affiliate ABC IP have since filed more than 130 infringement suits, and 95 are now pending in a single multidistrict litigation (MDL) before Chief Judge Amos Mazzant (E.D. Tex.).

The figure above comes from the preliminary injunction briefing and shows a colorized figure from one of the asserted patents (left) and CAD renderings of the patentee's product (the FRT-15L3, center) and the accused Disruptor (right). The minor differences are hand-marked.

---

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.