DCT

4:26-cv-01018

ABC IP LLC v. Stark80 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:26-cv-01018, M.D. Tenn., 06/13/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants reside in, have a regular and established place of business in, and/or have committed acts of infringement in the district. Defendant Jeremiah Williamson is alleged to reside in Gainesboro, Tennessee.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' aftermarket firearm trigger mechanisms and related components infringe nine U.S. patents related to "forced reset" trigger technology that increases the rate of semi-automatic fire.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns firearm trigger control groups, specifically mechanisms that use the force of a firearm's cycling action to mechanically reset the trigger, enabling a faster rate of fire than is possible with standard semi-automatic triggers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that ABC IP, LLC is the current owner by assignment of the Asserted Patents, with the assignments recorded at the USPTO. The complaint does not mention prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-09-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223
2019-12-24 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223
2020-01-01 Plaintiffs' alleged use of FRT mark begins "at least as early as 2020"
2021-11-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784
2022-01-10 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 11,724,003; 12,036,336; 12,274,807; 12,636,403
2022-09-08 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 12,038,247; 12,578,159
2023-08-15 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,724,003
2023-12-04 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538
2024-07-09 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784
2024-07-16 Issue Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 12,038,247; 12,036,336
2025-04-15 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,274,807
2026-01-20 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538
2026-03-17 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159
2026-05-26 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403
2026-06-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued July 16, 2024 (the "'247 Patent"). (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Standard semi-automatic trigger mechanisms require a user to manually release the trigger to reset the sear, which limits the potential rate of fire (Compl. ¶¶26-27). Prior art methods to accelerate fire, such as "bump firing," are described as being complex or unreliable ('247 Patent, Background, col. 1:39-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a trigger mechanism with selectable modes, including a "forced reset" mode (Compl. ¶29). In this mode, the cycling of the firearm's bolt carrier causes a cam to rotate, which in turn "forces said trigger member towards said set position" ('247 Patent, claim 15). This mechanically resets the trigger without the user needing to manually release it, allowing for a more rapid subsequent shot (Compl. ¶28).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a mechanical "drop-in" module to increase the rate of fire of common semi-automatic platforms like the AR-15, a significant feature in the firearm accessories market ('247 Patent, Summary of Invention, col. 2:30-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶66).
  • Claim 15 of the '247 Patent recites a firearm trigger mechanism comprising:
    • A hammer, trigger member, disconnector, and a cam with a cam lobe, all adapted to be mounted in a fire control mechanism pocket.
    • The cam is movable between a first position (for standard semi-automatic mode) and a second position (for forced reset semi-automatic mode).
    • In the standard mode, rearward movement of the bolt carrier causes the disconnector to catch the hammer, requiring the user to manually release the trigger to fire again.
    • In the forced reset mode, the cam is in the second position, where its cam lobe "forces said trigger member towards said set position."
    • In this forced reset mode, rearward movement of the bolt carrier causes the disconnector hook to be "prevented from catching said hammer hook," allowing the user to pull the trigger again as soon as the bolt carrier is in battery without first manually releasing the trigger.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶66).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784, "Adapted Forced Reset Trigger," issued July 9, 2024 (the "'784 Patent"). (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior forced reset trigger designs may not be universally compatible with different firearm platforms (e.g., AR-15 vs. AR-10) due to variations in geometry, such as the profile and positioning of the bolt carrier relative to the trigger components ('784 Patent, Background, col. 1:20-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an "extended trigger member locking device" featuring a "deflectable extension" ('784 Patent, claim 1). This extension, which makes contact with the bolt carrier, is "separately movable relative to the body portion" of the locking member ('784 Patent, claim 1). This allows the extension to fold or deflect out of the way as the forward portion of the bolt carrier passes during its rearward cycle, overcoming the geometric limitations of prior art and enabling compatibility across varied firearm designs (Compl. ¶30).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows a forced reset trigger mechanism to be adapted for use in multiple firearm platforms with different physical dimensions, broadening its market applicability ('784 Patent, Summary of Invention, col. 2:4-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).

  • Claim 1 of the '784 Patent recites an extended trigger member locking device for a forced reset trigger, comprising:

    • A locking member movable between a locked first position and an unlocked second position.
    • The locking member is configured to be movably supported by a frame and includes a "generally upward extension portion" to make contact with the bolt carrier.
    • This contact causes the locking member to move from the first to the second position.
    • 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 additional claims (Compl. ¶83).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538, "Safety Mechanism for Firearm," issued January 20, 2026 (the "'538 Patent"). (Compl. ¶13).
    • Technology Synopsis: The '538 Patent discloses a safety mechanism for a firearm that employs a cam selector, a lever, and a trigger (Compl. ¶31). The cam selector has multiple recesses and can operate in three modes: a standard semi-automatic mode, an "active reset" (forced reset) mode, and a safe mode that prevents the trigger from being pulled ('538 Patent, abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claim 1 (Compl. ¶100).
    • Accused Features: The "Super Safety" product is accused of infringing the '538 Patent (Compl. ¶36; Compl. ¶100).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued March 17, 2026 (the "'159 Patent"). (Compl. ¶14).
    • Technology Synopsis: The '159 Patent describes a firearm trigger mechanism operable in both a standard semi-automatic mode and a "forced reset" semi-automatic mode ('159 Patent, claim 1). The mechanism uses a cam, rotated by the action, to cause the trigger member to reset (Compl. ¶29).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claim 1 (Compl. ¶114).
    • Accused Features: The "Super Safety," "MARC Selector," "ARC-Fire," and "Kabuto" products are accused of infringing the '159 Patent (Compl. ¶114).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued December 24, 2019 (the "'223 Patent"). (Compl. ¶15).
    • Technology Synopsis: The '223 Patent describes a device where the cycling of the firearm's action causes the hammer to contact the trigger member, mechanically resetting both ('223 Patent, abstract). A locking bar prevents the trigger from being pulled again until the bolt carrier has returned to the in-battery position (Compl. ¶32).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claim 4 (Compl. ¶131).
    • Accused Features: The "Disruptor" product is accused of infringing the '223 Patent (Compl. ¶44; Compl. ¶131).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,724,003

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,724,003, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued August 15, 2023 (the "'003 Patent"). (Compl. ¶16).
    • Technology Synopsis: The '003 Patent discloses a trigger mechanism with two selectable modes of operation: a standard semi-automatic mode using a disconnector and a "forced reset" semi-automatic mode ('003 Patent, abstract). This dual-mode capability is a key feature (Compl. ¶33).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claim 4 (Compl. ¶145).
    • Accused Features: The "Disruptor" product is accused of infringing the '003 Patent (Compl. ¶44; Compl. ¶145).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,036,336

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,036,336, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued July 16, 2024 (the "'336 Patent"). (Compl. ¶17).
    • Technology Synopsis: The '336 Patent describes a trigger mechanism with selectable modes, including a standard semi-automatic mode and a "forced reset" mode ('336 Patent, abstract). The safety selector is configured to reposition the disconnector in the forced reset mode to prevent it from catching the hammer (Compl. ¶33).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claim 3 (Compl. ¶159).
    • Accused Features: The "Disruptor" product is accused of infringing the '336 Patent (Compl. ¶44; Compl. ¶159).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,274,807

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,274,807, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued April 15, 2025 (the "'807 Patent"). (Compl. ¶18).
    • Technology Synopsis: The '807 Patent discloses a trigger mechanism with selectable standard and "forced reset" modes ('807 Patent, abstract). It includes a locking member that prevents the trigger from moving until the bolt carrier is in battery (Compl. ¶33).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claim 1 (Compl. ¶172).
    • Accused Features: The "Disruptor" product is accused of infringing the '807 Patent (Compl. ¶44; Compl. ¶172).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued May 26, 2026 (the "'403 Patent"). (Compl. ¶19).
    • Technology Synopsis: The '403 Patent describes a trigger device with selectable modes, including a standard semi-automatic mode and a "forced reset" mode ('403 Patent, abstract). A key feature is the interaction between the safety selector and the trigger member to enable these different modes of operation (Compl. ¶33).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claim 38 (Compl. ¶186).
    • Accused Features: The "Super Safety," "MARC Selector," "Disruptor," "ARC-Fire," and "Kabuto" products are accused of infringing the '403 Patent (Compl. ¶186).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the "Super Safety," "MARC Selector," "Disruptor," "ARC-Fire," and "Kabuto" firearm trigger mechanisms (the "Infringing Devices") (Compl. ¶35).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Infringing Devices are aftermarket trigger components for AR-15-pattern firearms, sold via the website www.Stark80.com (Compl. ¶37; Compl. ¶41; Compl. ¶45; Compl. ¶52; Compl. ¶56). They are sold as either partial or complete kits containing components such as cams and levers (Compl. ¶37). The complaint alleges these devices provide a "forced reset" function where the cycling of the firearm's action mechanically resets the trigger, allowing for an accelerated rate of fire (Compl. ¶28). The devices are also alleged to feature selectable modes, allowing a user to switch between a standard semi-automatic "disconnector mode" and a "forced reset" mode (Compl. ¶39; Compl. ¶43; Compl. ¶47; Compl. ¶54; Compl. ¶58). The complaint provides product photographs from Defendants' website, such as one showing the "Stark80 Super Safety Remix Complete Kit" (Compl. ¶38).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides extensive claim charts with plaintiff-generated diagrams to illustrate its infringement theories. The following tables summarize the allegations for the lead patents against the "Super Safety" product, which is accused of infringing both.

  • '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 ... said disconnector ... and a cam having a cam lobe... The Super Safety is a trigger mechanism that functions as a cam to cause a reset of the trigger and lock the trigger during the cycle of operation. ¶68 col. 4:16-24
said cam being movable between a first position and a second position... The Super Safety's cam is alleged to be movable between a first position for standard semi-automatic mode and a second position for "forced reset" semi-automatic mode. ¶68 col. 4:5-10
in said second position said cam lobe forces said trigger member towards said set position, In the "forced reset" mode, the cam lobe allegedly mechanically moves the trigger member toward the set position. A plaintiff-generated diagram shows the cam and lobe in this second position (Compl. p. 23). ¶68 col. 5:32-37
whereupon in a forced reset semi-automatic mode, ... rearward movement of the bolt carrier causes rearward pivoting of said hammer such that said disconnector hook is prevented from catching said hammer hook, In "forced reset" mode, rearward movement of the bolt carrier allegedly causes rearward pivoting of the hammer such that the disconnector hook is prevented from catching the hammer hook. ¶68 col. 9:26-34
at which time the user can pull said trigger member to fire the firearm. The user can allegedly pull the trigger to fire the firearm once the bolt carrier has moved forward into battery. ¶68 col. 6:4-12
  • '784 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
In a forced reset 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 ... and a second position where it does not restrict movement... The Super Safety is alleged to operate as a locking member that has a first locked position and a second unlocked position. A diagram shows the "Unlocked Second Position" of the mechanism (Compl. p. 65). ¶85 col. 3:1-11
including a generally upward extension portion configured to make actuating contact with a surface of the bolt carrier, The Super Safety allegedly has an upward extending portion (lever arm) configured to make actuating contact with a surface of the bolt carrier. ¶85 col. 3:12-16
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 complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element for the Super Safety. The charts for the MARC Selector allege it has this feature (Compl. ¶86). ¶85 col. 3:18-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the '784 Patent will be the construction of "deflectable portion that is separately movable." Does the accused "lever arm" on the Super Safety or other products meet this definition, or does it pivot as part of a single rigid body in a way that falls outside the claim's scope? The complaint's charts for the MARC Selector attempt to show this separate movement, suggesting it is a key technical point of the dispute (Compl. ¶70).
    • Technical Questions: For the '247 Patent, a key question will be whether the accused cam "forces" the trigger member to reset as claimed. The analysis may examine whether the interaction is a positive mechanical push or a more passive guiding or camming action. For all patents, the court will likely need to evaluate the extent to which the plaintiff-generated, color-coded diagrams accurately depict the operation of Defendants' actual products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the '247 Patent:

    • The Term: "forces said trigger member towards said set position" (from claim 15)
    • Context and Importance: This term is the functional core of the "forced reset" mode. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the "force" could be a point of dispute-whether it requires overcoming a specific resistance versus simply guiding the part into place.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general description of the cam causing the trigger to be "forcibly reset" could support a broader reading that includes any mechanical action compelling the reset ('247 Patent, col. 2:40-42).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description shows "mechanical interference or contact between a rear surface ... of the hammer ... and a contact surface ... of the trigger member" that "forces the trigger to pivot" ('247 Patent, col. 5:32-37). A defendant may argue this requires a direct, positive push, not just incidental contact.

  • For the '784 Patent:

    • The Term: "upwardly extending deflectable portion that is separately movable" (from claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the novel feature intended to make the trigger mechanism adaptable to different firearm platforms. Infringement will likely depend on whether the accused products' "lever arms" are found to be "deflectable" and "separately movable."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the extension portion as "separately movable," which could be argued to cover any form of independent movement relative to the body ('784 Patent, abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the portion as having a "one-way hinge feature" that allows it "to give way (i.e., deflect or fold)" ('784 Patent, col. 2:2-6). The figures explicitly show a distinct pivot pin for the extension (e.g., '784 Patent, FIG. 8, element 54), which may support a narrower construction requiring a hinged or similarly jointed structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on Defendants allegedly "instructing others to use and/or how to use" the accused products (Compl. ¶72; Compl. ¶89). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that Defendants sell components, such as the "cam or cam lever arm," that are "specially designed and adapted" for an infringing use and are "not suitable for substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶74; Compl. ¶91).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents, claiming Defendants knew or should have known of their infringing conduct (Compl. ¶75; Compl. ¶92). This allegation is based on Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge, evidenced by language on their website referencing Plaintiffs and their products, and post-suit knowledge via service of the complaint (Compl. ¶75). The complaint includes a screenshot of a disclaimer from Defendants' website that explicitly names "Rare Breed Triggers" and the term "forced reset trigger" (Compl. p. 6).

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

This case presents a complex, multi-patent dispute over aftermarket firearm trigger technology. The outcome will likely depend on the court's resolution of several key technical and legal questions:

  1. A question of technical operation: Does the evidence show that Defendants' products function in the specific manner recited by the claims? For instance, does the accused cam "force" the trigger to reset as required by the '247 Patent, and does the locking mechanism's extension "deflect" independently as required by the '784 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their mechanical operation?

  2. A question of claim construction: Can broader terms like "forces" and "deflectable" be interpreted to cover the specific mechanical design of the accused products? The case may turn on whether these terms are given a general functional meaning or are limited to the specific hinged and direct-pushing structures shown in the patent embodiments.

  3. A question of intent: Did Defendants' explicit website references to Plaintiffs' brand and technology establish pre-suit knowledge and an objectively high likelihood of infringement sufficient to support a finding of willfulness, or will their disclaimer characterizing the references as descriptive nominative use be a successful defense against enhanced damages?

Loading Complaint