ABC IP LLC v. Mission Ridge Range: Dismissed Without Prejudice After 96 Days
ABC IP LLC filed a four-patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against TRG Ventures, operator of Mission Ridge Range and Academy, asserting claims related to the Partisan Disruptor. The case resolved in 96 days when plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before defendant had filed any answer.
Four-Patent Suit Against Shooting Range Operator Ends Early
On 13 March 2026, ABC IP LLC filed a patent infringement complaint in the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Rodney Gilstrap) against TRG Ventures, LLC, doing business as Mission Ridge Range and Academy. The suit asserted four US patents — US12274807B2, US12036336B2, US11724003B2, and US10514223B1 — in connection with the accused product identified as the Partisan Disruptor. Plaintiff was represented by Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas), Gillam & Smith, LLP, and Wood, Herron & Evans LLP.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order states that plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismissing all claims against defendant without prejudice, noting that defendant had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment. The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, directed the clerk to close the case, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
The case closed just 96 days after filing, before any substantive defence was mounted. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the specific reasons driving the early exit are not disclosed in the available record, and the plaintiff retains the ability to refile claims. What drove the resolution — whether licensing discussions, claim reassessment, or other considerations — is not apparent from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 96 days
96 days from filing to dismissal — resolved before defendant answered
US12274807B2 and three further patents — Partisan Disruptor technology
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing products that may overlap with the Partisan Disruptor technology should assess exposure against all four asserted patents. The without-prejudice dismissal provides no legal clearance. ABC IP LLC, as a dedicated IP licensing entity, retains full enforcement rights. Given the multi-patent family structure, an FTO analysis should map claim scope across all four patents and their application genealogies.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order accepted plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal without prejudice, confirming that defendant had not yet answered and that no merits adjudication took place. The without-prejudice designation means no claim was resolved, no patent was found valid or invalid, and no infringement determination was made. The bilateral cost order reflects the procedural — rather than substantive — nature of the exit.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff's unilateral right to dismiss
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because TRG Ventures had not yet answered, ABC IP LLC could dismiss as of right. The court's order accepted and acknowledged the dismissal — it did not adjudicate any claim on the merits.
No merits adjudicationDismissal without prejudice leaves the door open to refile
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying patent claims. ABC IP LLC is not barred from asserting the same four patents against TRG Ventures or others in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. No finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity was made. The patents remain in force as issued.
Refile option preservedMission Ridge exits without prejudice — no admission, no judgment
TRG Ventures achieved dismissal without having to litigate the merits, file an answer, or incur the full cost of defence. No finding of infringement was entered. However, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means TRG Ventures cannot treat this case as a final resolution of the patent risk — the same claims could be refiled.
No infringement findingCost order signals a clean bilateral exit — for now
The court's instruction that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees is consistent with a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal where no fee-shifting analysis was conducted. No exceptional-case finding was made. The four asserted patents remain live enforcement assets, and the Partisan Disruptor product has not been cleared by any court ruling. The specific terms driving this resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
No fee-shifting awardedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ABC IP LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | TRG Ventures, LLC d/b/a Mission Ridge Range and Academy, a limited liability company | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Glenn D Bellamy | Attorney | Counsel for ABC IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Alan Colvin | Attorney | Counsel for ABC IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for ABC IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing ABC IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing ABC IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wood, Herron & Evans LLP | Law Firm | Representing ABC IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals: Partisan Disruptor patent family and ABC IP LLC
Forward-looking patent intelligence around ABC IP LLC's four-patent portfolio and the Partisan Disruptor technology domain — for product teams and IP strategists.
ABC IP LLC's four-patent family: continuation strategy signals
ABC IP LLC holds at least four issued US patents tied to the Partisan Disruptor technology, filed across multiple application numbers spanning application generations from US16/143624 through US18/665926. This generational spread typically signals active continuation filing activity — meaning additional claims may still be pending. Monitoring ABC IP LLC's prosecution pipeline could reveal forthcoming patent assets before they issue.
Active patent familyPatent filing trends in the Partisan Disruptor product space
The Partisan Disruptor product sits within a specific firearms or range-technology category. Understanding the density of patent filings in adjacent product spaces — and whether other IP holders are building overlapping portfolios — helps product developers anticipate future enforcement risk and identify whitespace for differentiated R&D investment.
Filing trend analysisTRG Ventures' IP position in the shooting range operator segment
TRG Ventures LLC, operating Mission Ridge Range and Academy, does not appear in the record as a patent filer. Range operators and training facility businesses that lack their own IP portfolios face heightened exposure when IP licensing entities assert product-level patents. Understanding the competitive IP landscape among shooting range operators may inform defensive IP strategy for similarly positioned businesses.
Defensive IP gapAdjacent R&D opportunities near the asserted patent claims
With four patents asserted around a single product, the claimed invention space may be tightly defined. Adjacent technical approaches — alternative mechanisms or configurations that achieve a similar functional result without falling within the asserted claims — represent potential R&D white space. An Eureka claim-mapping query across the four patent family members can surface design-around opportunities for competing product developers.
Design-around opportunitySimilar patent infringement cases in E.D. Tex. involving IP licensing entities
Explore comparable patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas by IP licensing entities asserting multi-patent families against single accused products.
What this case signals for the firearms-tech IP landscape
A fast, pre-answer exit by an IP plaintiff holding four patents in the Eastern District of Texas warrants close attention from product developers and competitors.
Pre-answer dismissals in E.D. Tex. often signal ongoing licensing dialogue
When an IP plaintiff voluntarily exits before the defendant answers — as here — it typically suggests the litigation served a purpose other than full trial. Whether that purpose was licensing outreach, claim reassessment, or another strategic reason is not apparent from the public record, but the pattern is worth monitoring for entities in the Partisan Disruptor product space.
Four asserted patents remain live — refile risk is real
US12274807B2, US12036336B2, US11724003B2, and US10514223B1 were not invalidated, narrowed, or adjudicated. Any company whose products touch the technical claims of these patents should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a clearance. A freedom-to-operate analysis against all four patents remains advisable.
ABC v TRG — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. ABC IP LLC voluntarily filed a Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before TRG Ventures had answered the complaint. The court accepted the dismissal on 17 June 2026, 96 days after filing. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No merits determination was made.
ABC IP LLC asserted four US patents: US12274807B2 (app. US18/665926), US12036336B2 (app. US18/346423), US11724003B2 (app. US18/048572), and US10514223B1 (app. US16/143624). All four patents were asserted in connection with the accused product identified as the Partisan Disruptor. The patents remain in force following the without-prejudice dismissal.
A dismissal without prejudice means no claim was adjudicated on the merits. The four asserted patents were not found valid, invalid, infringed, or not infringed. ABC IP LLC retains the right to refile claims against TRG Ventures or other parties, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. TRG Ventures received no legal clearance from this dismissal.
The public record does not disclose the reasons for the early voluntary dismissal. The notice was filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The specific factors — whether licensing discussions, claim reassessment, or other considerations — are not apparent from the available record.
ABC IP LLC was represented by attorneys Glenn D. Bellamy, Matthew Alan Colvin, and Melissa Richards Smith. The plaintiff law firms on record are Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas), Gillam & Smith, LLP, and Wood, Herron & Evans LLP. No defence counsel was recorded in the available case data, consistent with the case closing before defendant had answered.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.