Book a demo
Franklin Armory v. No B.S. Accessories: Binary Trigger Patent Win | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:24-cv-01395
FiledJul 2024
ClosedSep 2024
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
43days
From filing to final judgment — well under the 2–3 year district court average
Patents asserted
1
US10393461B2 — BFSIII binary firing system, pull-release trigger technology for AR-pattern rifles
Outcome
Consent Judgment
Stipulated judgment entered; direct, induced, and contributory infringement all adjudicated against defendants
Cost ruling
Own Costs
Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs up to entry of judgment; prevailing-party fees apply to future enforcement actions
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:24-cv-01395
CourtNevada
JudgeN/A
FiledJuly 30, 2024
ClosedSeptember 11, 2024
Duration43 days
OutcomeConsent Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisConsent Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Nevada District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Consent Judgment in 43 days

From filing to final judgment — well under the 2–3 year district court average

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 30 2024, AUG–SEP — 43 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Franklin Armory Inc. v No B.S. Accessories Co. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Nevada District Court. JUL 30 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings SEP 11 2024 Consent Judgment 43 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Stipulated judgment and permanent injunction: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 disposition
Patent holder outcome

Franklin 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 prevailed
Defendant outcome

Defendants 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 ordered
Commercial implications

Binary 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 moat
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:24-cv-01395 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffFranklin Armory Inc.CompanyFirearms accessories innovator — holder of US10393461B2 (BFSIII binary trigger system)Search in Eureka ↗
Co-PlaintiffFranklin Armory Holdings, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantNo B.S. Accessories Co.CompanySmall firearms accessories retailer and manufacturer selling competing pull-release trigger productsSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantRicky Chester KipfmillerIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJeffrey Michael RatinoffAttorneyCounsel for Franklin Armory Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJing CherngAttorneyCounsel for Franklin Armory Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMary E BaconAttorneyCounsel for Franklin Armory Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmSpencer Fane LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Franklin Armory Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeNevada District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Plaintiffs Franklin Armory Holdings, Inc. and Franklin Armory, Inc. (collectively, “the Franklin Parties”), and Defendants Ricky Chester Kipfmiller d/b/a Unk’s Guns and No B.S. Accessories Co. (collectively, “the Kipfmiller Parties”) have agreed to resolve the Franklin Parties’ claims against the Kipfmiller Parties through this Stipulated Judgment, and hereby stipulate and move this Court for entry of judgment and a permanent injunction (“Stipulated Judgment”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that: 1. The Franklin Parties and the Kipfmiller Parties (collectively, the “Parties”) have consented to and agreed to the terms of this Stipulated Judgment herein. 2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties. 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400. 5. U.S. Patent No. 10,393,461 B2, which reissued on March 22, 2022 as U.S. Patent No. 10,393,461 C1 (the “’461 Patent”), is valid and enforceable. 6. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs Franklin Armory Holdings, Inc. and Franklin Armory, Inc. against Defendants Ricky Chester Kipfmiller d/b/a Unk’s Guns and No B.S. Accessories Co. on the claim for direct infringement of the ’461 Patent asserted as the First Claim for Relief in Franklin Parties’ Complaint (ECF No. 1). 7. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs Franklin Armory Holdings, Inc. and Franklin Armory, Inc. against Defendants Ricky Chester Kipfmiller d/b/a Unk’s Guns and No B.S. Accessories Co. on the claim for inducing others to infringe the ’461 Patent, asserted as the Second Claim for Relief in the Franklin Parties’ Complaint (ECF No. 1). 8. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs Franklin Armory Holdings, Inc. and Franklin Armory, Inc. against Defendants Ricky Chester Kipfmiller d/b/a Unk’s Guns and No B.S. Accessories Co. on the claim for contributing to the infringement of the ’461 Patent asserted as the Second Claim for Relief in the Franklin Parties’ Complaint (ECF No. 1). / / / Case 2:24-cv-01395-RFB-MDC Document 18 Filed 09/11/24 Page 2 of 10 3 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No.: 2:24-cv-01395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Spencer Fane LLP 225 W. Santa Clara Suite 1500 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 286-5100 9. The Kipfmiller Parties, have made, used, offered to sell, and sold pull-release trigger systems with three-position selectors, and various triggers, kits, and parts associated therewith, for use in various firearms (collectively, the “3-Position FOPAR Products”). As used herein, the term “3- Position FOPAR Product(s)” includes the triggers, disconnector assemblies, selectors, kits, parts, and other components used or adapted for use in the 3-Position FOPAR Products regardless of whether they are sold as a kit, as individual components or in “80%” form (i.e., they require modification to take advantage of their advertised pull-release firing capabilities). 10. Through their making, using, offering to sell, and selling of each of the 3-Position FOPAR Products, the Kipfmiller Parties have directly and indirectly infringed claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the ’461 Patent. 11. The Kipfmiller Parties’ infringement of the ’461 Patent has been willful since at least July 30, 2024. 12. The Kipfmiller Parties abandon, relinquish, renounce, and disavow any and all known and unknown claims and defenses that the ’461 Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. 13. The Kipfmiller Parties’ infringement of the ’461 Patent has caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to the Franklin Parties. 14. Ricky Chester Kipfmiller, Unk’s Guns and No B.S. Accessories Co. and any officers, agents, employees, representatives, partners, members, managers, shareholders, co-owners, successors, and assigns either of them have or may have, and any persons or entities acting, or purporting to act, under the control of either of them, or on behalf of either of them, are hereby permanently enjoined until the expiration of the ’461 Patent from: a. Making, using, importing into the United States, offering to sell, selling, or otherwise providing to anyone, in any manner whatsoever, any of the 3- Position FOPAR Products, either directly or indirectly through any other person or entity; b. Inducing or encouraging any other person or entity to make, use, import into the United States, offer to sell, or sell, in any manner whatsoever, any of the 3-Position FOPAR Products; Case 2:24-cv-01395-RFB-MDC Document 18 Filed 09/11/24 Page 3 of 10 4 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No.: 2:24-cv-01395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Spencer Fane LLP 225 W. Santa Clara Suite 1500 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 286-5100 c. Making, using, importing into the United States, offering to sell, selling, or otherwise providing to anyone, any tooling, drawings, design documents, CorelDRAW, CAD and MCAD files, blueprints, parts, kits, disconnector assemblies, selectors, components, or other products that are especially made or adapted for use in any of the 3-Position FOPAR Products. 15. Ricky Chester Kipfmiller, Unk’s Guns and No B.S. Accessories Co. and any officers, agents, employees, representatives, partners, members, managers, shareholders, co-owners, successors, and assigns either of them have or may have, and any persons or entities acting, or purporting to act, under the control of either of them, or on behalf of either of them, are also hereby permanently enjoined until the expiration of the ‘461 Patent from: a. Disparaging Franklin Armory, Inc. (including any of its officers, directors, and employees) and any product it has produced or will produce; and disparaging Franklin Armory Holdings, Inc. (including any of its officers, directors and employees) and any product it has produced or will produce. Disparagement includes speaking (whether verbally or in writing) slightingly of, deprecating or belittling, bringing discredit upon, or lowering the estimation of someone or something. b. Using the Franklin Parties’ trademarks, including U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,272,568 for the word mark “BINARY” and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,293,943 for the word mark “BINARY FIRING SYSTEM” (collectively “the Binary® Marks”) as part of the name of any goods or services, or in any manner that goes beyond descriptive or nominative fair use of such marks. 16. The Court hereby issues the following mandatory injunction against Ricky Chester Kipfmiller, Unk’s Guns and No B.S. Accessories Co. and any officers, agents, employees, representatives, partners, members, managers, shareholders, co-owners, successors, and assigns either of them have or may have, and any persons or entities acting, or purporting to act, under the control of either of them, or on behalf of either of them: Case 2:24-cv-01395-RFB-MDC Document 18 Filed 09/11/24 Page 4 of 10 5 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No.: 2:24-cv-01395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Spencer Fane LLP 225 W. Santa Clara Suite 1500 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 286-5100 a. Within three (3) days of entry of this Stipulated Judgment, the Kipfmiller Parties shall permanently take down, delete, prevent further access and otherwise remove the portions of the websites, https://nobsaccessories.com/ and https://unksguns.com/, https://vimeo.com/, https://www.youtube.com/, and all other websites, posts on discussion forums, social media posts and blog posts that they own, control, or have the ability and/or right to remove that refer to, display, illustrate and/or offer for sale any of the 3-Position FOPAR Products. b. Within three (3) days of entry of this Stipulated Judgment, the Kipfmiller Parties shall permanently take down, delete, prevent further access to and otherwise remove all videos demonstrating how to build, assemble, install, modify or operate the 3-Position FOPAR Products located on https://nobsaccessories.com/, https://unksguns.com/, https://vimeo.com/, https://www.youtube.com/ and all other websites, posts on discussion forums, social media posts and blog posts that they own, control, or have the ability and/or right to remove. c. Within three (3) days of entry of this Stipulated Judgment, the Kipfmiller Parties shall prominently post the agreed upon Notice of Stipulated Judgment, attached hereto as Attachment A, on the Kipfmiller Parties’ website (https://nobsaccessories.com/ and https://unksguns.com/). The Notice of Stipulated Judgment shall remain as such on the Kipfmiller Parties’ website for the period of one (1) year following the entry of this Stipulated Judgment. d. Within seven (7) days of entry of this Stipulated Judgment, the Kipfmiller Parties shall permanently delete and destroy all CorelDRAW, CAD and MCAD drawings and files, as well as electronic and hardcopy drawings, blueprints, or materials and documents that relate to design and Case 2:24-cv-01395-RFB-MDC Document 18 Filed 09/11/24 Page 5 of 10 6 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No.: 2:24-cv-01395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Spencer Fane LLP 225 W. Santa Clara Suite 1500 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 286-5100 manufacturing of the 3-Position FOPAR Products that are in their possession, custody or control. e. To the extent that any CorelDRAW, CAD or MCAD files, as well as any electronic and hardcopy drawings, blueprints, or materials and documents that relate to design and manufacturing of the 3-Position FOPAR Products are in the possession of any third parties, including but not limited to Send Cut Send LLC (sendcutsend.com), the Kipfmiller Parties shall request that they delete, destroy and prevent further access and use to all such materials, and identify those parties and provide confirmation to the Franklin Parties that such materials were deleted and/or destroyed within seven (7) days of entry of this Stipulated Judgment. f. Within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Stipulated Judgment, the Kipfmiller Parties shall, subject to the confirmation of an agent or representative of the Franklin Parties, destroy all pull-release disconnector parts used in the 3-Position FOPAR Products in the possession, custody or control of the Kipfmiller Parties. 17. In the event of a violation of Paragraph 14 and any subpart thereto, the Franklin Parties shall be entitled to immediately recover from the Kipfmiller Parties $750 for each 3-Position FOPAR Product sold after the date of this Judgment, as well as recover all their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing the provisions of this paragraph and Paragraph 14. The parties intend that such damages constitute just compensation and are not intended to be a penalty. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Franklin Parties’ harm caused by any breach of Paragraph 14 would be very difficult to accurately estimate at the time of this Stipulated Judgment, and amounts herein are a reasonable estimate of the anticipated or actual harm that might arise from a breach. 18. As between the Franklin Parties, on the one hand, and the Kipfmiller Parties, on the other, each shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the Action up to the point of entry of this Stipulated Judgment (except as otherwise specified in Paragraph 17 above and Paragraph 20 below). Case 2:24-cv-01395-RFB-MDC Document 18 Filed 09/11/24 Page 6 of 10 7 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No.: 2:24-cv-01395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Spencer Fane LLP 225 W. Santa Clara Suite 1500 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 286-5100 19. The Parties waive all rights to appeal this Stipulated Judgment. 20. This Stipulated Judgment adjudicates all claims in this litigation and is a final judgment. However, the Court expressly retains jurisdiction over any action to enforce this Stipulated Judgment and the underlying Confidential Settlement Agreement concurrently entered into by the Parties herewith. In any such action, the prevailing party shall be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 21. The parties hereby stipulate to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada for all purposes for purposes of continuing jurisdiction over this case. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: September __, 2024 FRANKLIN ARMORY HOLDINGS, INC. By: Jay Jacobson, President Dated: September __, 2024 FRANKLIN ARMORY, INC. By: Jay Jacobson, President Dated: September __, 2024 RICKY CHESTER KIPFMILLER d/b/a UNK’S GUNS Ricky Chester Kipfmiller Dated: September __, 2024 NO B.S. ACCESSORIES CO. By: Ricky Chester Kipfmiller, Owner / / / / / / 07 07 09 09 Case 2:24-cv-01395-RFB-MDC Document 18 Filed 09/11/24 Page 7 of 10 8 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No.: 2:24-cv-01395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Spencer Fane LLP 225 W. Santa Clara Suite 1500 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 286-5100 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED. DATED: September 11, 2024 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:24-cv-01395, Nevada District Court

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.

PACER case 2:24-cv-01395 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US10393461B2 — Binary pull-release trigger system for AR-pattern firearms

Publication No.US10393461B2
Application No.US15/923831
Patent details
ProductPull-release binary firing system trigger with three-position selector for AR-pattern rifles
Cited in actionJuly 30, 2024

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.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10393461B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Franklin Armory Inc. patent enforcement history, Nevada case history, Franklin Armory Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Other BFSIII enforcement actionsPull-release trigger IPR historyAR-15 accessories patent mapReissue patent validity cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full enforcement strategy analysis for the binary trigger firearms accessories sector — district court level insights from Nevada.
Willfulness leverage mapDesign-around risk scoreReissue claim scope delta
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Franklin v No — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Map your binary trigger IP exposure before you launch

The ‘461 Patent is validated, reissued, and now backed by a public willfulness record. PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can clear your pull-release trigger design against the asserted claims and flag related family members before you reach market.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.