Franklin Armory v. No B.S. Accessories: Permanent Injunction in 43 Days
Franklin Armory Holdings and Franklin Armory Inc. sued No B.S. Accessories Co. and owner Ricky Chester Kipfmiller over willful infringement of their ‘461 binary trigger patent. The Nevada District Court entered a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction just 43 days after filing, shutting down the defendants’ entire 3-Position FOPAR product line.
Binary trigger innovator wins swift consent judgment with full injunctive relief
On July 30, 2024, Franklin Armory Holdings, Inc. and Franklin Armory, Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against No B.S. Accessories Co. and its owner, Ricky Chester Kipfmiller (operating also as Unk’s Guns), asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,393,461 — a patent covering pull-release binary trigger systems with three-position selectors for AR-pattern and other firearms. The accused products, collectively termed ‘3-Position FOPAR Products,’ included triggers, disconnector assemblies, selectors, kits, and components sold both as complete units and in so-called ‘80%’ form.
The case resolved on September 11, 2024, through a Stipulated Judgment and Permanent Injunction endorsed by Judge Richard F. Boulware II. The judgment adjudicated claims of direct infringement, inducement, and contributory infringement in Franklin Armory’s favour. Notably, the defendants explicitly abandoned all invalidity and unenforceability defences, confirming the ‘461 Patent as valid and enforceable. The permanent injunction bars the Kipfmiller parties from manufacturing, selling, or promoting any 3-Position FOPAR Products until patent expiry and mandates destruction of all related design files and physical components within specified deadlines.
A resolution in 43 days is consistent with defendants who lacked independent legal representation and faced a strong infringement record — the judgment explicitly found willfulness dating to the filing date. The consent judgment also extends beyond patent relief, restraining defendants from disparaging Franklin Armory and prohibiting unauthorised use of the BINARY® and BINARY FIRING SYSTEM® trademarks. The confidential settlement agreement referenced in the judgment may contain additional financial terms not visible from the public record.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 43 days
From filing to final judgment — well under the 2–3 year district court average
Stipulated judgment and permanent injunction: what the ruling means for both parties
Consent judgment ends case with full merits adjudication
A stipulated judgment is a court-ordered final judgment entered by consent of both parties. Unlike a settlement that merely dismisses claims, this instrument formally adjudicates infringement on three theories — direct, induced, and contributory — and carries the same legal force as a litigated verdict. The defendants waived all appeal rights and all invalidity defences, creating a binding record that the ‘461 Patent is valid and enforceable.
Full merits dispositionFranklin Armory secures patent validity confirmation and broad injunction
Franklin Armory obtained everything a plaintiff typically seeks at trial: adjudicated infringement on all three theories, a permanent injunction barring all future sales and manufacture of competing products, mandatory destruction of design files and physical inventory, and an anti-disparagement clause protecting its brand. Willfulness was also on record as of the filing date. A $750-per-unit liquidated damages clause deters any post-judgment violation, with prevailing-party attorney fees as additional exposure.
Plaintiff fully prevailedDefendants abandon product line and surrender all defences
The Kipfmiller parties surrendered the entirety of their 3-Position FOPAR business. They must permanently delete all design files, destroy physical stock, take down websites and social media content, and post a public notice of the judgment for one year. Critically, they relinquished all known and unknown invalidity and unenforceability arguments — foreclosing any future challenge to the ‘461 Patent based on the same grounds. Any future violation carries automatic $750-per-unit damages plus attorney fees.
Full business shutdown orderedBinary trigger market: patent barrier reinforced at district court level
The judgment strengthens Franklin Armory’s IP moat around binary and pull-release trigger technology. Competitors and aftermarket trigger manufacturers should note that the ‘461 Patent — which reissued in 2022 as C1 — has now survived a consent-judgment validity confirmation with willfulness on record. Any three-position FOPAR-style design or 80%-kit workaround is squarely within the injunction’s scope, raising the litigation risk profile for functionally similar products across the firearms accessories sector.
Reinforced IP moatFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Franklin Armory Inc. | Company | Firearms accessories innovator — holder of US10393461B2 (BFSIII binary trigger system)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Franklin Armory Holdings, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | No B.S. Accessories Co. | Company | Small firearms accessories retailer and manufacturer selling competing pull-release trigger productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Ricky Chester Kipfmiller | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Michael Ratinoff | Attorney | Counsel for Franklin Armory Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jing Cherng | Attorney | Counsel for Franklin Armory Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mary E Bacon | Attorney | Counsel for Franklin Armory Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Spencer Fane LLP | Law Firm | Representing Franklin Armory Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Nevada District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Stipulated Judgment is unusually comprehensive for a consent disposition: it adjudicates all three infringement theories — direct (§271(a)), inducement (§271(b)), and contributory (§271(c)) — rather than merely resolving claims by dismissal. The defendants’ explicit abandonment of invalidity and unenforceability defences creates a binding evidentiary record that could be relevant in collateral proceedings. Willfulness is formally recorded as of the complaint date, which is an aggressive but strategically deliberate framing consistent with Franklin Armory’s enforcement objectives. The confidential settlement agreement referenced in paragraph 20 may contain financial terms not disclosed in the public docket.
US10393461B2 — Binary pull-release trigger system for AR-pattern firearms
U.S. Patent No. 10,393,461 B2 covers a pull-release trigger system — commonly marketed as a ‘binary trigger’ — featuring a three-position selector (safe, semi-automatic, and FOPAR/pull-release fire) for use in AR-15 pattern and compatible rifles. The patent originally issued and subsequently reissued on March 22, 2022 as US10393461C1, a process that subjects claims to renewed USPTO examination and typically signals the patentee’s intent to strengthen or clarify claim scope. The asserted claims — 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 — were found infringed by three-position FOPAR trigger assemblies, including disconnectors, selectors, and associated kits.
Franklin Armory’s BFSIII® product line is the commercially dominant binary trigger platform for civilian AR-pattern rifles. The ‘461 Patent’s reissue status and broad claim construction — explicitly capturing 80%-form component kits — make it a high-value enforcement asset in a market where aftermarket trigger manufacturers increasingly offer competing pull-release systems. For competitors, the combination of a reissued patent, a willfulness finding, and a publicly recorded invalidity waiver substantially elevates the risk profile of any three-position FOPAR-adjacent design in the U.S. market.
Should you run an FTO against US10393461C1 before launching a pull-release trigger product?
Any manufacturer, importer, or retailer developing or sourcing binary trigger systems, three-position selector assemblies, or pull-release disconnector kits for AR-pattern or compatible firearms should treat the ‘461 Patent as a primary FTO clearance target. The reissue event expanded the claim record and the consent judgment has now produced a public validity confirmation. The explicit capture of 80%-form kits in the injunction signals that partial-assembly workarounds will not provide safe harbour.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your trigger mechanism design against the asserted claims of US10393461C1, identify the claim elements most likely to read on three-position FOPAR architectures, and surface design-around prior art or alternative disconnector geometries. Eureka also monitors continuation and related application activity under the same patent family, alerting your team to any broadening amendments that could extend Franklin Armory’s enforcement reach into adjacent product configurations.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10393461B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar binary trigger and firearms accessories patent cases
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving binary trigger technology and firearms accessories IP litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the binary trigger and firearms accessories IP landscape
Franklin Armory’s 43-day enforcement sprint demonstrates how reissue patents with broad claims can be deployed for rapid, comprehensive relief.
Reissue patents carry enhanced enforcement credibility
The ‘461 Patent reissued in 2022 as C1, meaning its claims were reviewed and confirmed by the USPTO a second time. The defendants’ explicit abandonment of all invalidity defences in the consent judgment is consistent with challengers recognising that a reissue patent presents a higher bar to invalidity arguments — a dynamic that firearms accessories competitors and their counsel should factor into any design-around analysis.
80%-kit workarounds are explicitly captured by this injunction
The judgment’s definition of ‘3-Position FOPAR Products’ expressly includes components sold in ‘80%’ form that require modification to achieve pull-release function. This is a notable drafting choice that closes a common grey-market loophole. Manufacturers offering partially-complete trigger kits in adjacent spaces should audit whether similar kit-form carve-outs appear in their IP exposure analysis.
Franklin v No — key questions answered
The Nevada District Court entered a Stipulated Judgment and Permanent Injunction on September 11, 2024 in favour of Franklin Armory. The judgment adjudicated direct infringement, inducement, and contributory infringement of US10393461B2 (reissued as C1). Defendants were permanently enjoined from making, selling, or promoting any 3-Position FOPAR Products and were required to destroy all related design files and physical inventory.
Franklin Armory asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,393,461 B2, which reissued on March 22, 2022 as US10393461C1. The ‘461 Patent covers pull-release binary trigger systems featuring three-position selectors for use in AR-pattern and compatible firearms. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 were specifically found infringed.
The infringing products — collectively termed ‘3-Position FOPAR Products’ — included pull-release trigger systems with three-position selectors, disconnector assemblies, selectors, kits, and individual components for use in various firearms. The definition expressly captured products sold in ‘80%’ form, meaning partially complete assemblies that required modification to achieve pull-release firing capability.
Yes. The Stipulated Judgment formally records that the Kipfmiller parties’ infringement was willful as of at least July 30, 2024 — the date the complaint was filed. In addition, any future violation of the permanent injunction triggers automatic liquidated damages of $750 per 3-Position FOPAR Product sold, plus all reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Franklin Armory in enforcement proceedings.
No. As part of the Stipulated Judgment, the Kipfmiller parties expressly abandoned, relinquished, and disavowed all known and unknown claims and defences that the ‘461 Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. This is an unusually broad concession that creates a binding record of patent validity and limits the defendants’ ability to raise such arguments in any future proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.