Abc IP LLC v. Z3 Productions LLC
Infringement action filed 23 Jun 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and closed 10 Apr 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US12031784B1US12038247B2
- Case no.
- 5:25-cv-00695
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Okla.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Oklahoma
- Chief judge
- Charles Goodwin
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 23 Jun 2025 – 10 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 291 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- AR-pattern trigger mechanism · Super Safety” (3 Position)
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
Firearm trigger mechanism
A trigger mechanism that can be used in AR-pattern firearms has a hammer, a trigger member, a disconnector, a cam, and a “three position” safety selector having safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset semi-automatic positions. In the standard semi-automatic position, rearward movement of the bolt carrier causes rearward pivoting of the hammer and pivoting of the cam from a first position to a second position such that a cam lobe forces the trigger member towards the set position, but prior to reaching the set position the disconnector hook catches the hammer hook, at which time a user must manually release the trigger member to free the hammer from the disconnector to permit the hammer and trigger member to pivot to their set positions so that the user can pull the trigger member to fire the firearm. In the forced reset semi-automatic position, rearward movement of the bolt carrier causes rearward pivoting of the hammer and pivoting of the cam from the first position to the second position such that the cam lobe forces the trigger member to the set position, the safety selector preventing the disconnector hook from catching the hammer hook, at which time the user can pull the trigger member to fire the firearm without manually releasing the trigger member.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 16 Jul 2024
- Earliest priority
- 8 Sep 2022
- Est. expiry
- 30 May 2043
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2025-01473 · Patentability · filed by ATRIUS DEVELOPMENT GROUP CORP.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BLAKLEY, BRIAN A.
- Classification
- F41A19/45F41A17/46F41A19/10F41A19/15F41A19/16
- Prosecution counsel
- WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
- Examiner
- TILLMAN, JR., REGINALD S
Parties of record
Abc IP LLC
- Core tech
- F41A17/46F41A19/10F41A19/43F41A19/45
- Counsel
- Benjamin Christoff · Carl Bruce · Colin H Tucker · Glenn D Bellamy · Matt Colvin
- Firm
- Fish & Richardson LLP, Fish & Richardson – Carl E. Bruce, Fish & Richardson LLP (Matt Colvin), Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Wood, Herron & Evans LLP
Z3 Productions LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- John Skeriotis · Michael S Vernon
- Firm
- Emerson Thomson Bennett, Michael S. Vernon Attorney at Law, PLLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Benjamin Christoff | Abc IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| Carl Bruce | Abc IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| Colin H Tucker | Abc IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| Glenn D Bellamy | Abc IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| Matt Colvin | Abc IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| John Skeriotis | Z3 Productions LLC | Defendant |
| Michael S Vernon | Z3 Productions LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The Eastern District of Texas is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Rare Breed Triggers is a Texas-based company, the inventors named on two of the asserted patents reside in Texas, and several potential tag-along actions are pending in the Eastern District of Texas. We assign this litigation to the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III, who is well-versed in complex patent litigation, but has not yet had the opportunity to preside over a multidistrict litigation. We are confident that Judge Mazzant will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the Eastern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MDL No. 3176 is hereby renamed In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation”
Case 5:25-cv-00695 · W.D. Okla. · closed 10 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 5:25-cv-00695?
5:25-cv-00695 is a patent infringement action brought by Abc IP LLC against Z3 Productions LLC, filed on 23 Jun 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The case closed on 10 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 5:25-cv-00695?
US12031784B1 (“Adapted forced reset trigger”), assigned to ABC IP, LLC, currently active; US12038247B2 (“Firearm trigger mechanism”), assigned to ABC IP, LLC, currently active. The record also lists AR-pattern trigger mechanism and Super Safety” (3 Position).
How was case 5:25-cv-00695 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “The Eastern District of Texas is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Rare Breed Triggers is a Texas-based company, the inventors named on two of the asserted patents reside in Texas, and several potential tag-along actions are pending in the Eastern District of Texas. We assign this litigation to the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III, who is well-versed in complex patent litigation, but has not yet had the opportunity to preside over a multidistrict litigation. We are confident that Judge Mazzant will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. IT IS THEREFORE
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 5:25-cv-00695 take?
291 calendar days, from filing on 23 Jun 2025 to closure on 10 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 5:25-cv-00695?
Chief Judge Charles Goodwin presided. Benjamin Christoff, Carl Bruce, Colin H Tucker, Glenn D Bellamy and Matt Colvin are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Abc IP. John Skeriotis and Michael S Vernon appear for defendant Z3 Productions.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 5:25-cv-00695 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.