DCT

4:26-cv-00370

Rare Breed Triggers Inc v. As Designs LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:26-cv-00370, E.D. Tex., 05/26/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas on the grounds that Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district and maintain a regular and established place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' aftermarket firearm trigger mechanisms, sold as the "Super Safety" and "ARC-Fire," infringe five patents related to "forced reset" trigger technology that accelerates the rate of fire in semi-automatic firearms.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns trigger control groups for AR-15-platform firearms that use the cycling of the bolt carrier to mechanically reset the trigger, enabling a faster rate of fire than is possible with a standard semi-automatic trigger mechanism.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants AS Designs and Matthew Karlovic on August 9, 2025, which expressly accused certain products of infringing the '247 Patent. This event is cited as the basis for pre-suit knowledge in the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 Priority Date
2022-01-10 U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 Priority Date
2022-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 Priority Date
2022-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 Priority Date
2023-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 Priority Date
2024-07-09 U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 Issued
2024-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 Issued
2025-08-09 Cease and desist letter sent to Defendants
2026-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 Issued
2026-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 Issued
2026-05-26 U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 Issued
2026-05-26 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 - "Firearm Trigger Mechanism"

  • Issued: July 16, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Standard semi-automatic triggers include a disconnector that prevents firing more than one round per trigger pull, holding the hammer until the user manually releases the trigger to reset it Compl. ¶24 While methods exist to increase the rate of fire, such as "bump firing," the patent identifies a need for an improved mechanical solution, particularly one that does not require modification of a standard M16-pattern bolt carrier assembly '247 Patent, col. 1:55-68
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a trigger mechanism, often in a "drop-in" module format, with a three-position selector for "safe," "standard semi-automatic," and "forced reset semi-automatic" modes '247 Patent, abstract Compl. ¶25 In the "forced reset" mode, the rearward movement of the firearm's bolt carrier during the firing cycle pivots a cam, which in turn mechanically forces the trigger member back to its reset position '247 Patent, col. 9:43-51 This allows the user to fire another round immediately upon the bolt's return to battery, without needing to manually release the trigger first Compl. ¶25 A key aspect is that in this mode, the safety selector mechanically prevents the disconnector from catching the hammer, which is essential for the forced reset cycle to function '247 Patent, col. 11:5-11
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a way to substantially increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm, emulating a feel closer to automatic fire while operating via a distinct mechanical principle Compl. ¶26

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 Compl. ¶44 Compl. ¶46
  • Essential elements of claim 15 include:
    • A firearm trigger mechanism comprising a hammer, trigger member, disconnector, cam, and a safety selector.
    • The mechanism is operable in a "standard semi-automatic mode" where the disconnector catches the hammer, and a user must manually release the trigger to fire again.
    • The mechanism is also operable in a "forced reset semi-automatic mode."
    • In the forced reset mode, the cam is in a second position, and rearward movement of the bolt carrier causes the disconnector hook to be prevented from catching the hammer hook.
    • Thereafter, the bolt carrier moves forward, at which time the user can pull the trigger to fire.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶44

U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 - "Adapted Forced Reset Trigger"

  • Issued: July 9, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Forced reset trigger mechanisms designed for one firearm pattern (e.g., AR-15) may not function in another (e.g., AR-10) due to different geometries '784 Patent, col. 1:21-32 Specifically, the bolt carrier's vertical position relative to the trigger components can vary. A locking bar from an AR-15 design might be too short to be actuated by an AR-10 bolt carrier, but simply making it longer could cause it to interfere with the bolt carrier as it cycles rearward '784 Patent, col. 1:36-44
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a trigger locking member with an "upwardly extending deflectable portion" that functions as a one-way hinge '784 Patent, abstract '784 Patent, col. 2:61-65 This extension is long enough to be actuated by the bolt carrier as it returns to its forward, in-battery position, which unlocks the trigger '784 Patent, col. 4:7-21 However, when the bolt carrier cycles to the rear, the deflectable portion pivots or folds out of the way, allowing the bolt carrier to pass without interference '784 Patent, col. 4:26-36
  • Technical Importance: This design allows a common forced-reset trigger architecture to be adapted for use across multiple firearm platforms with varying dimensions, enhancing its modularity and market applicability Compl. ¶27

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶64 Compl. ¶66
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An extended trigger member locking device for a forced reset trigger mechanism.
    • A locking member movable between a first (locked) and second (unlocked) position.
    • The locking member has an upward extension portion to make "actuating contact" with the bolt carrier, causing the member to move from the locked to the unlocked position.
    • Crucially, the locking member has a "movably supported" body portion and an "upwardly extending deflectable portion that is separately movable relative to the body portion."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶64

U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 - "Safety Mechanism for Firearm"

  • Issued: January 20, 2026
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a safety mechanism for a firearm that includes a cam selector, a lever, and a trigger Compl. ¶28 The cam selector provides three modes of operation by interacting with a tail portion of the trigger: a standard mode, an "active reset" mode where the cam forces the trigger tail down to reset it, and a safe mode that physically prevents the trigger from being pulled '538 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted Compl. ¶80
  • Accused Features: The "Super Safety" device is accused of infringing this patent Compl. ¶81

U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 - "Firearm Trigger Mechanism"

  • Issued: March 17, 2026
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology is a firearm trigger mechanism operable in two modes: a standard semi-automatic mode and a "forced reset" semi-automatic mode Compl. ¶26 In the standard mode, the user must manually release pressure on the trigger to reset the disconnector '159 Patent, col. 13:10-18 In the forced reset mode, the cycling of the bolt means causes the disconnector hook to be prevented from holding the hammer, allowing the user to fire again without first releasing pressure '159 Patent, col. 13:19-28
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted Compl. ¶95
  • Accused Features: The "Super Safety" and "ARC-Fire" devices are accused of infringing this patent Compl. ¶95

U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 - "Firearm Trigger Mechanism"

  • Issued: May 26, 2026
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a selectable, dual-mode trigger mechanism Compl. ¶29 In the standard mode, rearward actuation of the trigger and cycling of the action results in the disconnector catching the hammer, requiring the user to reduce pressure to reset the trigger '403 Patent, col. 17:40-49 In the forced reset mode, cycling of the action forces the trigger to a reset position, and the user does not need to reduce pressure to fire again '403 Patent, col. 17:55-66
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 38 is asserted Compl. ¶114
  • Accused Features: The "Super Safety" and "ARC-Fire" devices are accused of infringing this patent Compl. ¶115

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "Super Safety" and the "ARC-Fire" trigger devices Compl. ¶31

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Super Safety and ARC-Fire are aftermarket trigger mechanisms for AR-pattern and other firearms, sold as partial kits, complete kits, or pre-installed in lower receivers Compl. ¶34 Compl. ¶39 The complaint provides a screenshot of the "ARC-Fire Trigger - Ambi Kit" sold on the Defendants' website Compl. ¶40 The ARC-Fire is described as having a three-position selector for "Safe, Semi, and ARC" (Active Reset Clutch), which corresponds to a "forced reset" mode Compl. ¶13, screenshot Compl. ¶42 The Super Safety is also alleged to operate in a "disconnector mode" similar to a standard AR-15 trigger and a "forced reset" mode Compl. ¶37 The complaint alleges Defendants market these products for their ability to increase the rate of fire Compl. ¶26

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'247 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A firearm trigger mechanism comprising: a hammer... a trigger member... a disconnector... a cam... and a safety selector... The Super Safety is alleged to be a trigger mechanism that, when installed, includes these components Compl. ¶46 ¶46 col. 7:6-14
whereupon in a standard semi-automatic mode... said cam is in said first position, rearward movement of the bolt carrier causes... said disconnector hook catches said hammer hook... at which time a user must manually release said trigger member to free said hammer from said disconnector... The complaint alleges that in one mode, the Super Safety operates as a standard semi-automatic trigger where the disconnector catches the hammer, requiring the user to release the trigger to reset and fire again Compl. ¶46 ¶46 col. 10:23-29
whereupon in a forced reset semi-automatic mode, said cam is in said second position, rearward movement of the bolt carrier causes... said disconnector hook is prevented from catching said hammer hook... The complaint alleges that in the "forced reset" mode, the cam moves to a second position, and the action prevents the disconnector from engaging the hammer, as shown in a provided diagram Compl. ¶46 ¶46 col. 10:29-37
and thereafter the bolt carrier moves forward into battery, at which time the user can pull said trigger member to fire the firearm. The complaint alleges that after the bolt carrier returns to battery in the forced reset mode, the user can immediately pull the trigger to fire again, without having released it Compl. ¶46 ¶46 col. 10:37-41

'784 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
In a forced rest trigger mechanism, an extended trigger member locking device, comprising: a locking member that is movable between a first position in which it locks a trigger member... and a second position where it does not restrict movement... The ARC-Fire is alleged to operate as a locking member that has a locked first position and an unlocked second position, as depicted in diagrams Compl. ¶67 ¶67 col. 5:12-20
the locking member configured to be movably supported by a frame and including a generally upward extension portion configured to make actuating contact with a surface of a bolt carrier... The complaint alleges the ARC-Fire has an upward extending portion (lever arm) that makes contact with the bolt carrier to move the locking member from the first to the second position Compl. ¶67 ¶67 col. 5:21-26
the locking member having a body portion that is movably supported and an upwardly extending deflectable portion that is separately movable relative to the body portion between an extended position and a deflected position. The ARC-Fire is alleged to have a body portion and an upwardly extending "deflectable portion (lever arm)" that is separately movable, as illustrated in a diagram showing its independent range of motion Compl. ¶67 A screenshot from the complaint demonstrates this alleged separate movement Compl. ¶66, p. 53 ¶67 col. 6:2-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Functional Operation: For the '247, '159, and '403 patents, a central issue will be whether the accused devices' "forced reset" mode operates in the specific manner claimed. This includes whether the cam "forces" the trigger to a set position and whether the disconnector is truly "prevented from catching said hammer hook" by the action of the safety selector, as required by claim 15 of the '247 patent.
    • Scope Questions: For the '784 patent, the analysis may focus on the term "separately movable." The question for the court will be whether the accused ARC-Fire's articulated lever arm, which pivots relative to its body, meets the definition of being "separately movable relative to the body portion" as understood in the context of the patent's specification and figures, which describe a "one-way hinge feature" '784 Patent, col. 2:61-65

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247:

    • The Term: "prevented from catching said hammer hook" (from claim 15).
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical to distinguishing the "forced reset" mode from the "standard" mode. The infringement analysis depends on how the accused device achieves this "prevention." Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiffs allege the safety selector performs this function, and the defense may argue their mechanism works differently or that the disconnector is not "prevented" in the claimed way, but rather bypassed or rendered irrelevant.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify the mechanism of prevention, which could support an interpretation that covers any method of ensuring the disconnector does not catch the hammer in the forced reset mode.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this prevention directly to the safety selector, stating that in the forced reset position, "a narrow semi-circular portion 116 ... prevents the disconnector 60 from pivoting with the trigger member 38 thus preventing the disconnector hook 64 from catching the hammer hook 53" '247 Patent, col. 8:55-62 This suggests the prevention is an active blocking function performed by the selector itself.

  • For U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784:

    • The Term: "separately movable" (from claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core novelty of the adapted trigger-the hinged or deflecting extension. The case may turn on whether the accused devices' multi-part construction exhibits movement that is "separate" enough to meet this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "separately movable" could encompass any two connected parts that have any degree of relative motion. The summary of the invention describes it as the upward extension portion being "separately movable relative to the body portion" without further limitation '784 Patent, col. 2:62-64
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently show a distinct component (the "foldable extension portion 22") that pivots on its own pin ("transverse pivot pin 24") relative to the main "locking bar body 26" '784 Patent, col. 3:40-46 '784 Patent, FIG. 2 This may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, hinged articulation rather than mere flexing or minor play between components.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five asserted patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendants' alleged actions of "encouraging, advertising, promoting, and instructing others" to use the accused products in an infringing manner, specifically citing promotional materials, troubleshooting guides, and videos on their website Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶49 Compl. ¶68 Compl. ¶69 Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the components of the accused devices, such as the trigger assembly, are "specially designed and adapted" for infringing use and are "not suitable for substantial noninfringing use" Compl. ¶55 Compl. ¶71
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. The complaint bases this on Defendants having "known or should have known that their actions constituted" infringement, citing the August 9, 2025 cease and desist letter as establishing pre-suit knowledge of at least the '247 patent Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶56 The complaint further alleges that Defendants continued their infringing activities after receiving this notice Compl. ¶22

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of functional equivalence: do the accused "Super Safety" and "ARC-Fire" triggers, in their respective "forced reset" modes, operate by the same specific sequence of mechanical interactions as claimed in the patents? This will involve a detailed analysis of whether the accused cam "forces" the trigger reset and whether the disconnector is "prevented" from engaging the hammer in a manner that reads on the patent claims.
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "separately movable," as used in the '784 patent to describe a hinged extension for adapting triggers to different firearm platforms, be construed to cover the specific articulated design of the defendants' accused products?
  • A key evidentiary question for the indirect infringement claims will be one of intent and instruction: does the evidence from Defendants' website, including product descriptions, installation videos, and marketing materials, demonstrate a specific intent to encourage customers to assemble and use the components in a way that directly infringes one or more claims of the asserted patents?
Loading Amended Complaint