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

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.
MISTER GUNS, LLC, THOMAS CARTER
II, and BRANDI CARTER,
Defendants.
Civil No. 2:26-CV-00056
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
Case 2:26-cv-00055-ALM Document 88 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUPERIOR FIREARMS OF TEXAS, LLC,
Defendant.
Civil No. 2:26-CV-00058
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
80MILLS LLC, d/b/a TACTICAL TITAN
SUPPLY, and PEARSON GARDNER,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-00380
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRISTOPHER COPE,
Defendant.
Civil No. 2:26-CV-00033
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DNT LLC, d/b/a DEEZ NUTZ TACTICAL,
and ZACH MORROW,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-00377
Case 2:26-cv-00055-ALM Document 88 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HANES TACTICAL, LLC, and DAMION
TERRELL BENNETT,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-00369
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HARRISON GUNWORKS LLC, and
TYLER HARRISON,
Defendants.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-00379
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARS TRIGGER, LLC, and PETER
BRENNEN,
Defendants.
Civil No. 2:26-CV-00030
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVEN THANH NGUYEN, d/b/a
POLYMER PEW,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-00425
Case 2:26-cv-00055-ALM Document 88 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OPTICS PLANT, INC., d/b/a ECENTRIA,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-00521
ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED
TRIGGERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Z3 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, d/b/a Z3PRO,
Defendant.
Civil No. 4:26-CV-00367
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are three Motions filed by various member groups in Case No.
4:26-md-031761. First, six defendant groups brought substantively identical or nearly identical
motions, as represented by Defendants MaRs Triger, LLC and Peter Brennen’s Opposed Motion
and Joinder in Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs’
Consolidated Preliminary Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral Process, and Set a
1 Defendants Mister Guns, LLC, Thomas Carter II, Brandi Carter, PistolCap Limited Company d/b/a Frisco Guns,
Mordekhai Harroch, ProSource Firearms, LLC, and Superior Firearms of Texas, LLC are referred to herein as the
“Atrius Customer Defendants.” The Atrius Customer Defendants, collectively with the remaining Defendants to
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction (Case No. 4:26-md-03176, Dkt. #7), are herein referred to as the
“Defendants.”
Case 2:26-cv-00055-ALM Document 88 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Status Conference (No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #37) (the “Motion to Enlarge Deadlines”)2. 	Second,
thirteen defendant groups jointly brought Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction
Pending Resolution of Federal Circuit Appeals (No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt #38) (the “Motion to Stay
Pending Appeals”)3. Finally, thirteen defendant groups brought substantively identical or nearly
identical motions, as represented by Defendants’ Motion to Hold Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion
for Preliminary Injunction in Abeyance Because It Seeks Relief on Patents Not Asserted in the
Operative Complaints (No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #39) (the “Motion to Hold in Abeyance”)4.
Having considered the Motions, responses, and relevant pleadings, the Court finds that
each motion should be DENIED.
I. 	Requested Relief
Each of the Motions request the same relief. First, Defendants seek an emergency stay of
the deadlines for responding to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction (Case No. 4:26-md-
03176, Dkt. #7), Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery (Case No. 4:26-md-03176, Dkt. #11),
Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Case No. 4:26-md-03176, Dkt. #5), and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Excess
2 Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary
Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral Process, and Set a Status Conference was filed in five cases (Case
No. 2:26-cv-56, Dkt. #43; Case No. 4:26-cv-521, Dkt. #59; Case No. 2:26-cv-53, Dkt. # 40; Case No. 2:26-cv-55,
Dkt. #40; Case No. 2:26-cv-58, Dkt. #42). Defendants MaRs Triger, LLC and Peter Brennen’s filed a Motion for
Joinder in Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated
Preliminary Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral Process, and Set a Status Conference which
incorporates the same substantive arguments (No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #37)
3 Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Resolution of Federal Circuit Appeals was filed in six
cases on June 4, 2026 (Case No. 2:26-cv-56, Dkt. #44; Case No. 2:26-cv-42, Dkt. #41; Case No. 2:26-cv-55-Dkt.
#41; Case No. 2:26-cv-58, Dkt. #43; Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #38; Case No. 4:26-cv-521, Dkt. #60). On September
14, 2026, the Court granted the remaining Defendants’ Motion for Joinder (Case No. 4:25-cv-380, Dkt. #77).
4 Defendants’ Motion to Hold Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Abeyance Because It Seeks
Relief on Patents Not Asserted in the Operative Complaints was filed in six cases on June 4, 2026 (Case No. 2:26-
cv-00056, Dkt. # 45; Case No. 2:26-cv-00053, Dkt. # 42; Case No. 2:26-cv-00055, Dkt. # 42; Case No. 2:26-cv-
00058, Dkt. # 44; Case No. 2:26-cv-00030, Dkt. # 39; Case No. 4:26-cv-00521, Dkt. # 61). On September 14, 2026,
the Court granted the remaining Defendants’ Motion for Joinder (Case No. 4:25-cv-380, Dkt. #78).
Case 2:26-cv-00055-ALM Document 88 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Pages (Case No. 4:26-md-03176, Dkt. #12). Second, Defendants seek a twenty-one-day period for
the parties to confer on threshold procedural issues arising from Plaintiffs’ filings. Third,
Defendants request a status conference with the Court to address threshold procedural issues and
to hear argument on Defendants’ other separately filed related motions, specifically the Motion to
Hold in Abeyance and the Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. # 37). The
Court will consider each Motion individually below.
II. 	The Motion to Enlarge Deadlines
On June 3, 2026, the Atrius Customer Defendants filed the Motion to Enlarge Deadlines.
On June 27, 2026, Plaintiffs ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed an
opposition (Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #45).
On September 18, 2026, the Court entered an Order granting expedited discovery related
to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction and coordinated a briefing scheduling for the
preliminary injunction(Case No. 4:26-cv-448, Dkt. #109). Thus, the Court finds that the
relief requested relating to the briefing or discovery deadlines in connection with Plaintiffs’
Consolidated Preliminary Injunction should be DENIED as moot.
The Court further finds that a twenty-one-day period for the parties to confer on threshold
procedural issues is no longer necessary and should be DENIED as moot. To the extent the parties
would like to address any procedural issues with the Court, the parties shall meet and confer prior
to the upcoming Case Management Conference scheduled on October 15, 2026, at 9:00 am. If the
parties are unable to resolve the issues through the meet-and-confer process, the parties shall raise
the issues at the Case Management Conference.
Case 2:26-cv-00055-ALM Document 88 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
III. 	The Motion to Stay Pending Appeals
On June 4, 2026, Defendants jointly brought the Motion to Stay Pending Appeals seeking
the relief identified above, see supra Part I, in addition to requesting the Court stay Plaintiffs’
preliminary injunction motion pending resolution of the Federal Circuit’s appeals related to the
Partisan5 and Hoffman6 cases (Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #38). On June 18, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the Motion to Stay Pending Appeals (Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #46). On June 29,
2026, Defendants filed a reply (Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #56); on July 6, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a
sur-reply (Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #61).
In the Partisan case, the District Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief (Case
No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #38 at p. 9). On September 15, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision
of the district court denying relief in the Partisan case (ABC IP LLC v. Peak Tactical LLC, No. 26-
1527, Dkt. #54 (Fed. Cir. 2026)). Thus, the Court will deny the Defendants’ request as to the
Partisan case as moot.
As to Hoffman, Defendants argue that the Federal Circuit’s ruling will directly bear on the
preliminary injunction analysis here because the overlapping issues concern the same patentee
asserting the same types of harm in the same competitive landscape (Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt.
#38 at p. 13). Plaintiffs argue that a stay would not simplify the issues because the appeals turn on
the record before the district court, and would not prove the merits of Plaintiffs’ infringement,
validity, or irreparable harm arguments (Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #46 at p. 18). The Court agrees
5 The “Partisan case” in this Order refers to ABC IP LLC v. Peak Tactical LLC, No. 26-1527 (Fed. Cir.) and ABC IP,
LLC et.al v. peak Tactical, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-0018-KHR (D. Wyo.).
6 The “Hoffman case” in this Order refers to Timothy Hoffman v. ABC IP, LLC, No. 26-1775 (Fed. Cir.) and ABC IP,
LLC v. Timothy Hoffman, No. 1:25-cv-00389-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn.).
Case 2:26-cv-00055-ALM Document 88 Filed 10/08/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
with Plaintiffs that the Federal Circuit’s opinion in the pending Hoffman case will not have a
substantial impact on the issues before the Court. See Navis v. PHH Mortgage Services, 2026 WL
1701005, at *7 (E.D. Tex. June 10, 2026) (“Showing a substantial likelihood of success on a claim
against one party does not support an injunction against a different party”). Plaintiffs’ Preliminary
Injunction seeks injunctive relief against different parties and on a different evidentiary record
(Case No. 4:26-md-03176, Dkt. #7). Thus, the Court will deny Defendants’ request to stay the
proceedings related to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction pending resolution of the
appeal of the Hoffman case at the Federal Circuit.
IV. 	The Motion to Hold in Abeyance
On June 4, 2026, Defendants concurrently filed the Motion to Hold in Abeyance seeking
the relief identified above, see supra Part I, in addition to asking the Court to hold Plaintiffs’
Consolidated Motion for Preliminary Injunction in abeyance in its entirety until the Court has
decided all pending motions for leave to file amended complaints in the thirteen underlying actions
(Case No. 2:26-cv-30; Dkt. #39 at p. 8). On June 18, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
Motion to Hold in Abeyance (Case No. 2:26-cv-30; Dkt. #39 at p. 8).
On September 22, 2026, the Court granted the pending motions for leave to file amended
complaints in the thirteen underlying actions to assert infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,626,403
(Case No. 2:26-cv-30; Dkt. #68). Thus, the Court finds that Defendants’ request to hold Plaintiffs’
Consolidated Motion for Preliminary Injunction in abeyance should be denied as moot.
It is therefore ORDERED that Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines
Relating to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral
Process, and Set a Status Conference (No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #37; Case No. 2:26-cv-56, Dkt. #43;
Case 2:26-cv-00055-ALM Document 88 Filed 10/08/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Case No. 4:26-cv-521, Dkt. #59; Case No. 2:26-cv-53, Dkt. # 40; Case No. 2:26-cv-55, Dkt. #40;
Case No. 2:26-cv-58, Dkt. #42) is DENIED as moot.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending
Resolution of Federal Circuit Appeals (Case No. 2:26-cv-56, Dkt. #44; Case No. 2:26-cv-53, Dkt.
#41; Case No. 2:26-cv-55-Dkt. #41; Case No. 2:26-cv-58, Dkt. #43; Case No. 2:26-cv-30, Dkt. #38;
Case No. 4:26-cv-521, Dkt. #60) is DENIED as moot as to the Partisan case and DENIED as to
the Hoffman case.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Hold Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion
for Preliminary Injunction in Abeyance Because It Seeks Relief on Patents Not Asserted in the
Operative Complaints (Case No. 2:26-cv-00056, Dkt. # 45; Case No. 2:26-cv-00053, Dkt. # 42;
Case No. 2:26-cv-00055, Dkt. # 42; Case No. 2:26-cv-00058, Dkt. # 44; Case No. 2:26-cv-00030,
Dkt. # 39; Case No. 4:26-cv-00521, Dkt. # 61) is DENIED as moot.
It is further ORDERED that to the extent the parties would like to address any further
procedural issues with the Court, the parties shall meet and confer prior to the upcoming Case
Management Conference scheduled for October 15, 2026, at 9:00 am. If the parties are unable to
resolve the issues through the meet-and-confer process, the parties shall raise the issues at the Case
Management Conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 2:26-cv-00055-ALM Document 88 Filed 10/08/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>