ABC IP, LLC, et al., v. Atlantic Firearms LLC, et al.

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
In Re: Rare Breed Triggers Panel
Litigation
4:26-md-03176
MDL 3176
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PISTOLCAP LIMITED COMPANY, d/b/a
FRISCO GUNS, and MODEKHAI
HARROCH,
Defendants.
Civil No. 2:26-CV-00053
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PROSOURCE FIREARMS, LLC,
Defendant.
Civil No. 2:26-CV-00055
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUPERIOR FIREARMS OF TEXAS, LLC,
Defendant.
Civil No. 2:26-CV-00058
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AR-TT, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company; CLAUSEN INC., a Washington
corporation; JONATHAN CLAUSEN, an
individual; and JODI CLAUSEN, an
individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-cv-693
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANTONIO CHOUKAIR, AN
INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A ASTRO TACTICAL,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-755
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TGR SERVICES, LLC, a Texas limited
liability company; and TGR VENTURES,
LP, a Texas limited partnership,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-680
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AR-15 GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA,
INC., a Georgia corporation; and CHRIS
ALLEN WALTZ, an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-761
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WEBCORP, INC., a Missouri corporation;
and THOMAS KIRGIN, JR., an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-768
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HAWKPHIN SALES, LLC, an Iowa limited
liability company; and ADAM GERLEMAN,
an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-707
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SHOOTING TARGETS USA, LLC, a North
Carolina limited liability company; and
MICHAEL JOSEPH SPEENEY, an
individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-799
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EAST COAST CERAKOTE LLC, a South
Carolina limited liability company; and
GAVIN LUZIER, an individual,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-831
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ATLANTIC FIREARMS, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company, and BLAINE
BUNTING, an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-926
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VELOCITY AMMUNITION SALES, LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company; and
DAVID ALLEN HAZLETT, an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-954
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
QUICK RESPONSE FIREARMS, LLC, an
Idaho limited liability company; DANIEL
CORSINI, an individual; and JERRIED
“JERRY” BROWN, an individual,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-944
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INOCULUM-GROUP LLC, an Idaho limited
liability company; and RYAN K.
JACOBSON, an individual,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-945
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID FRESHWATER, an individual, d/b/a
IDAHO ARMS & AMMO,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-930
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SKER INDUSTRIES, LLC, a New York
limited liability company; and JORDAN
LINSKER, an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-928
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VANCE OUTDOORS INC. et. Al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1009
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
2A NINJA LLC, a Missouri limited liability
company; and ETHAN ALEXANDER
COOK, an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1106
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRTY BIRD INDUSTRIES, LLC, a
California limited liability company; JAY
PITCHER, an individua; DUSTIN
PITCHER, an individual; and LORI
PITCHER, an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1013
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MGCC Enterprises LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company, d/b/a Flip Ammo,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1068
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ODIN WORKS, INC., an Idaho corporation;
and THOMAS HINES, an individual,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1091
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMBAT ARMORY LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1129
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BILSON ARMS, LLC, a Louisiana limited
liability company; and JOHN W. ANGERS
JR., an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1134
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Wyoming
limited liability company, d/b/a STAR DEV
LLC; and SARAH STOKES, an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1136
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OPTICS PLANET, INC., d/b/a ECENTRIA,
an Illinois corporation,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-521
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FIREARMS DIRECT CLUB LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; KIMBERLY
SMITH, an individual; and TAYLOR
SPEARS, an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1120
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MUFFINTOP TACTICAL LLC, a Texas
limited liability company; and JASON
RAMSDEN, an individual,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-1277
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CLOAK INDUSTRIES, INC., an Idaho
corporation, and WILLIAM C. KING JR., an
individual,,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-608
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SGC, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
company, d/b/a Scottsdale Gun Club, and
TERENCE D SCHMIDT, an individual, and
RONALD KENNEDY, an individual,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-694
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FIREARM SYSTEMS LLC d/b/a FIREARM
SYSTEMS, an Arizona limited liability
company, and BRANDON DONATTO, an
individual, and MICHAEL STAKES, an
individual,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-695
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CANUCK TACTICAL LLC, d/b/a
RANGESPORT AMERICA LLC, a
Louisiana limited liability company,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-705
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are thirteen Motions to Stay, pending in thirty-two member
actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds
that the Motions should be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 2026, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a
Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26-md-3176, Dkt. #1). Since then, over 100 cases
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
have been transferred to this Court for participation in MDL No. 3176, In re: Rare Breed Triggers
Patent Litigation.
These consolidated actions arise from Plaintiffs’ patented ʻforced reset trigger’ (“FRT®”)
technology (Case No. 4:26-md-3176, Dkt. #56 at p.21). The Defendants include manufacturers,
importers, distributors, and resellers of products that Plaintiffs allege infringe on Plaintiffs’
patented technology (Case No. 4:26-md-3176, Dkt. #56 at p.22).
LEGAL STANDARD
The trial court has broad discretion to sever and stay actions. See Anderson v. Red River
Waterway Comm'n, 231 F.3d 211, 214 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15
F.3d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing FED. R. CIV . P. 21). When a patent infringement suit is brought
against a manufacturer and its customer, the court may stay the action against the customer pending
resolution of the case against the manufacturer. In re Nintendo of Am., Inc., 756 F.3d 1363, 1365-66
(Fed. Cir. 2014); see also In re Dell Inc., 600 F. App'x 728, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding such a stay
is not mandatory). “The customer-suit exception developed not as a general exception to a lawsuit
against a manufacturer and re-seller, but as an ʻexception to the “first-to-file” rule ... to avoid, if
possible, imposing the burdens of trial on the customer.’” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Tech. Consumer
Prods., Inc., 2024 WL 1961320, at *1 (D. Del. May 2, 2024) (quoting In re Nintendo, 756 F.3d at
1365). “[T]he guiding principles in the customer suit exception cases are efficiency and judicial
economy.” Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (citing Tegic Commc'ns Corp. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys., 458 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)).
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
ANALYSIS
Relying on the customer-suit exception and the traditional stay factors, over thirty Moving
Defendants1 in MDL 3176 assert that the Court should stay their claims pending final resolution of
Plaintiffs’ claims against the relevant manufacturers. These motions were filed piece-meal as new
cases were transferred to the 3176 MDL. Similar motions were filed by the Moving Defendants on
March 25, 2026,2 July 1, 2026,3 July 14, 2026,4 July 28, 2026,5 August 17, 2026,6 August 26, 2026,7
September 3, 2026,8 September 15, 2026,9 and most recently, October 2, 2026.10 The relevant
manufacturer suits include ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Peak Tactical, LLC d/b/a Partisan Triggers et al.,
No. 4:26-cv-00689 (E.D. Tex.); Atrius Development Group Corp. v. ABC IP, LLC, et al., Nos. 7:26-
cv-00211 (W.D. Tex.) and 4:26-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.); Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., et al., v. AS Designs,
1 The Court will refer to all Defendants who have filed a Motion to Stay under the customer-suit exception as the
“Moving Defendants.”
2 On March 25, a motion to stay was filed in three member actions (Case No. 2:26-cv-53, Dkt. #13; Case No. 2:26-cv-
55, Dkt. #14; Case No. 2:26-cv-58, Dkt. #15).
3 On July 1, a motion to stay was filed in four member actions (Case No. 4:26-cv-705, Dkt. #30; Case No. 4:26-cv-695,
Dkt. #32; Case No. 4:26-cv-694, Dkt. #39; Case No. 4:26-cv-608, Dkt. #27)
4 On July 14, a motion to stay was filed in six member actions (Case No. 4:26-cv-707, Dkt. #36; Case No. 4:26-cv-768,
Dkt. #50; Case No. 4:26-cv-761, Dkt. #12; Case No. 4:26-cv-680, Dkt. #13; Case no. 4:26-cv-755 (Dkt. #16); Case
No. 4:26-cv-693, Dkt. #27).
5 On July 28, a motion to stay was filed in two member actions (Case No. 4:26-cv-799, Dkt. #15; Case No. 4:26-cv-831,
Dkt. #20).
6 On August 17, a motion to stay was filed in five member actions (Case No. 4:26-cv-954, Dkt. #11; Case No. 4;26-cv-
944, Dkt. #19; Case No. 4:26-cv-945, Dkt. #17; Case No. 4:26-cv-930, Dkt. #15; Case No. 4:26-cv-928, Dkt. #17).
A separate motion to stay was filed in Case No. 4:26-cv-00926, Dkt. #16.
7 On August 26, a motion to stay was filed in two member actions (Case No. 4:26-cv-1106, Dkt. # 26; Case No. 4:26-
cv-1013, Dkt. #15). A separate motion to stay was filed in Case No. 4:26-cv-1009, Dkt. #29.
8 On September 3, a motion to stay was filed in three member actions (Case No. 4:26-cv-1068, Dkt. #17; Case No. 4:26-
cv-1091, Dkt. #19; Case No. 4:26-cv-1129, Dkt. #14).
9 On September 15, a motion to stay was filed in three member actions (Case No. 4:26-cv-521, Dkt. #129; Case No.
4:26-cv-1134, Dkt. #13; Case No. 4:26-cv-1136, Dkt. #15).
10 On October 2, 2026, a motion to stay filed in two member actions (Case No. 4:26-cv-1120, Dkt. #24; Case No. 4:26-
cv-1277, Dkt. #13).
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
LLC, et al., No. 4:26-cv-00370 (E.D. Tex.); ABC IP, LLC, et al., v. Advanced Threat Assessment and
Training, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-14198 (S.D. Fla.); ABC IP, LLC, et al., v. Timothy Hoffman, et al., No.
4:26-cv-00378 (E.D. Tex.); ABC IP, LLC, et al., v. NSPEC Innovations LLC, et al., No. 1:26-cv-01553
(W.D. Tex.); ABC IP, LLC, et al., v. Redacted Arms LLC, No. 4:26-cv 00754 (E.D. Tex.); Rare Breed
Triggers, Inc., et al., v. DNT LLC, et al., No. 4:26-cv-00377 (E.D. Tex.); ABC IP, LLC, et al., v. Z3
Productions, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00367 (E.D. Tex.) (altogether, the “Manufacturer Actions”).
The core of the parties’ dispute is the application of the customer-suit exception,
specifically whether in this case “litigation against or brought by the manufacturer of infringing
goods” should “take precedence over a suit by the patent owner against customers of the
manufacturer.” Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 909 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Application of the
customer-suit exception is not automatic where both a manufacturer and customer are involved in
parallel litigation. Monterey Research, LLC v. Renesas Elec. Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00238-JRG, 2025 WL
6110046, at *2 (“While the Court may stay proceedings against a customer, the Court, in its
discretion, may deny a stay . . .”).
According to the Federal Circuit, the “guiding principles in the customer-suit exception
cases are efficiency and judicial economy.” Tegic Communs. Corp. v. Bd. Of Regents, 458 F.3d 1335,
1343 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (denying application of the customer suit exception where party did not show
a stay would be more efficient). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the customer-suit exception
is less compelling where “this MDL proceeding exists to coordinate and streamline the
proceedings” (Dkt. #33 at p. 6). Further, other policy considerations underlying the customer-suit
exception are not present here. There is no risk of forum shopping. Spread Spectrum LLC, 657 F.3d
at 1358 (noting “it is unclear that the customer suit exception to the first-to-file doctrine is even at
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
issue” where the Court was “not presented with a traditional first-to-file scenario, and the
underlying policy considerations associated with a ʻrace to the courthouse,’ such as deterring forum
shopping, are not implicated”). Further, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
already found “centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings—especially regarding claim construction, patent validity, and the
appropriateness of injunctive relief—and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and
the judiciary” (Case No. 4:26-md-3176, Dkt. #1).
Accordingly, the Court finds that a stay under the customer-suit exception is not
appropriate here. This is especially true where Rule 16.1 allows this Court to consolidate pleadings,
appoint leadership counsel, and otherwise increase efficiency without the need to stay the Moving
Defendant’s cases and prolong Plaintiff’s litigation of these issues. FED. R. CIV. P. 16.1; see also Case
No. 4:26-md-03176, Dkt. #56 (Parties Joint Initial Management Report proposing the appointment
of leadership counsel and the authorization of consolidated, streamlined pleadings).
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that the Moving Defendants’ pending motions to stay (Case
No. 2:26-cv-53, Dkt. #13; Case No. 2:26-cv-55, Dkt. #14; Case No. 2:26-cv-58, Dkt. #15; Case
No. 4:26-cv-705, Dkt. #30; Case No. 4:26-cv-695, Dkt. #32; Case No. 4:26-cv-694, Dkt. #39; Case
No. 4:26-cv-608, Dkt. #27, Case No. 4:26-cv-707, Dkt. #36; Case No. 4:26-cv-768, Dkt. #50; Case
No. 4:26-cv-761, Dkt. #12; Case No. 4:26-cv-680, Dkt. #13; Case no. 4:26-cv-755, Dkt. #16; Case
No. 4:26-cv-693, Dkt. #27; Case No. 4:26-cv-799, Dkt. #15; Case No. 4:26-cv-831, Dkt. #20; Case
No. 4:26-cv-954, Dkt. #11; Case No. 4:26-cv-944, Dkt. #19; Case No. 4:26-cv-945, Dkt. #17; Case
No. 4:26-cv-930, Dkt. #15; Case No. 4:26-cv-928, Dkt. #17; Case No. 4:26-cv-00926, Dkt. #16;
Case No. 4:26-cv-1106, Dkt. # 26; Case No. 4:26-cv-1013, Dkt. #15; Case No. 4:26-cv-1009, Dkt.
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
#29; Case No. 4:26-cv-1068, Dkt. #17; Case No. 4:26-cv-1091, Dkt. #19; Case No. 4:26-cv-1129,
Dkt. #14; Case No. 4:26-cv-521, Dkt. #129; Case No. 4:26-cv-1134, Dkt. #13; Case No. 4:26-cv-
1136, Dkt. #15; Case No. 4:26-cv-1120, Dkt. #24; Case No. 4:26-cv-1277, Dkt. #13) are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 4:26-cv-00926-ALM Document 21 Filed 10/08/26 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>