Abc IP LLC v. Timothy Hoffman
Infringement action filed 23 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee and closed 14 Apr 2026, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US12031784B1US12529538B2US12038247B2US7398723B1
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-00389
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tenn.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Tennessee
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 23 Dec 2025 – 14 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 112 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- 3D CAD file
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Adapted forced reset trigger
In a forced rest trigger mechanism, provided is an extended trigger member locking device having a locking member that is movable between a first position in which it locks a trigger member against pulling movement and a second position where it does not restrict movement of the trigger member. The locking member is configured to be movably supported by a frame and includes a generally upward extension portion configured to make actuating contact with a surface of a bolt carrier. The locking member has a body portion that is movably supported and an upward extension portion that is separately movable relative to the body portion between an extended position and a deflected position.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 9 Jul 2024
- Earliest priority
- 5 Nov 2021
- Est. expiry
- 4 Nov 2042
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DEMONICO, LAWRENCE
- Classification
- F41A17/46F41A19/10F41A19/43
- Prosecution counsel
- WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
- Examiner
- CLEMENT, MICHELLE
Safety mechanism for firearm
A safety mechanism for a firearm includes a cam selector, a lever, and a trigger. The cam selector comprises a first end, a second end, a top side, and a bottom side. The cam selector comprises a longitudinal slot positioned on the top side of the cam selector. The lever comprises a proximal end and a distal end. The longitudinal slot is configured to receive the lever. The cam selector further comprises a first recess and a second recess on the bottom side of the cam selector. The trigger comprises a first trigger tail portion. In addition to the standard semi-automatic and safe modes, the present invention provides an additional active reset mode in which the cam selector is configured to allow the first trigger tail portion to engage the second recess and be moved down by a cam portion of the second recess when the cam selector rotates.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 20 Jan 2026
- Earliest priority
- 4 Dec 2023
- Est. expiry
- 4 Dec 2044
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SMITH, CAMERON
- Classification
- F41A17/46
- Prosecution counsel
- WOOD HERRON & EVANS LLP
- Examiner
- TILLMAN, JR., REGINALD S
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Abc IP LLC
- Core tech
- F41A17/46F41A19/10F41A19/43
- Counsel
- David A. Skeels · Decker A. Cammack · Glen D Bellamy · Joseph Alan Jackson II
- Firm
- Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams, P.C., Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz PLLC
Timothy Hoffman
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jacob G. Horton · Jonathan M Blanchard
- Firm
- Blanchard Horton PLLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David A. Skeels | Abc IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| Decker A. Cammack | Abc IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| Glen D Bellamy | Abc IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| Joseph Alan Jackson II | Abc IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jacob G. Horton | Timothy Hoffman | Defendant |
| Jonathan M Blanchard | Timothy Hoffman | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On April 2, 2026, the Panel transferred 6 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See MDL No. 3176, ECF No. 44 (J.P.M.L. 2026). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been transferred to the Eastern District of Texas. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to Judge Mazzant. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Eastern District of Texas for the reasons stated in the order of April 2, 2026, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.”
Case 1:25-cv-00389 · E.D. Tenn. · closed 14 April 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:25-cv-00389?
1:25-cv-00389 is a patent infringement action brought by Abc IP LLC against Timothy Hoffman, filed on 23 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The case closed on 14 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 1:25-cv-00389?
US12031784B1 (“Adapted forced reset trigger”), assigned to ABC IP, LLC, currently active; US12529538B2 (“Safety mechanism for firearm”), assigned to ABC IP, LLC, currently active; US12038247B2 (“Firearm trigger mechanism”), assigned to ABC IP, LLC; US7398723B1 (“Trigger forward displacement system and method”), assigned to ABC IP, LLC. The record also lists 3D CAD file.
How was case 1:25-cv-00389 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “On April 2, 2026, the Panel transferred 6 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See MDL No. 3176, ECF No. 44 (J.P.M.L. 2026). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been transferred to the Eastern District of Texas. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously trans
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 1:25-cv-00389 take?
112 calendar days, from filing on 23 Dec 2025 to closure on 14 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-00389?
David A. Skeels, Decker A. Cammack, Glen D Bellamy and Joseph Alan Jackson II are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Abc IP. Jacob G. Horton and Jonathan M Blanchard appear for defendant Timothy Hoffman.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-00389 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.