In a serious growth within the ongoing authorized disputes surrounding pressured reset triggers (FRTs), a federal decide in Wyoming has denied a movement by Uncommon Breed Triggers and its affiliate, ABC IP, LLC, for a brief restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction in opposition to competitor Peak Tactical, LLC (doing enterprise as Partisan Triggers) and its proprietor, Nicholas Norton.
The ruling, issued on February 13, 2026, within the U.S. District Court docket for the District of Wyoming, permits Partisan Triggers to proceed manufacturing and promoting its Partisan Disruptor set off whereas the patent infringement and false promoting lawsuit proceeds towards trial. The choice follows a February 4, 2026, in-person listening to at which each events offered arguments and testimony.
Pressured reset triggers are aftermarket gadgets designed for semi-automatic firearms, primarily AR-15-style rifles. They mechanically reset the set off after every shot, enabling sooner follow-up pictures with out requiring the shooter to completely launch finger stress, leading to a rapid-fire functionality whereas remaining labeled as semi-automatic underneath federal regulation (at the least post-2025 developments). Uncommon Breed’s flagship product, the FRT-15L3, sells for about $450, whereas the Disruptor is marketed at a lower cost level, at roughly $299 by way of sure distributors.
Uncommon Breed, by way of ABC IP (which owns the patents) and Uncommon Breed Triggers, Inc. (the unique licensee and producer), sued Peak Tactical in early 2026. The criticism alleges willful direct, contributory, and induced infringement of 4 patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,514,223; 11,724,003; 12,036,336; and 12,274,807. These patents cowl FRT designs which can be retrofittable to current semi-automatic rifles. Plaintiffs additionally claimed false patent marking and false promoting underneath the Lanham Act, asserting that Partisan mislabels the Disruptor as an “assisted reset set off” (quite than a pressured reset set off) and falsely claims it practices an older patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,146,067) held by a Partisan worker, Michael Stakes. That patent covers the Tac-Con 3MR set off.
Uncommon Breed sought to enjoin Defendants from making, promoting, or importing the Disruptor (or considerably equivalent merchandise), and from making disputed public statements about its design and patent protection.
Of their movement, Plaintiffs argued a robust probability of success on the deserves, citing possession of the patents, the Disruptor’s alleged shut resemblance to their FRT-15L3 (described as a “direct copy” with solely minor beauty variations), and no substantial prior problem to patent validity. They asserted irreparable hurt from value erosion, lack of market share, reputational injury, and enterprise losses, and that the stability of hardships favored them and that the general public curiosity helps patent enforcement.
Defendants countered that the Disruptor doesn’t meet key declare limitations of the asserted patents, supported by knowledgeable evaluation. They highlighted that their ‘067 patent (an assisted reset design) predates Uncommon Breed’s patents and argued that the Disruptor practices the asserted claims in that patent, whereas suggesting that Uncommon Breed’s personal merchandise might infringe Peak Tactical’s patent. They contended that declare development can be wanted, criticized Plaintiffs’ infringement proof as conclusory and missing element-by-element element, and disputed the false promoting claims by arguing that phrases like “assisted reset,” “pressured reset,” and “constructive reset” describe related mechanisms.
On irreparable hurt, Defendants pointed to Plaintiffs’ delay in suing (months after the Disruptor hit the market) whereas pursuing different seller lawsuits, suggesting any hurt is compensable by way of cash damages (misplaced earnings, royalties, and so on.). They warned that an injunction would devastate their small enterprise, inflicting collapse, whereas Plaintiffs’ hurt stays financial. In addition they argued that the general public curiosity favors competitors, not early shutdowns, and that any injunction would require a considerable bond.
The court docket utilized the four-factor take a look at for preliminary injunctive aid (probability of success, irreparable hurt, stability of equities, public curiosity), discovering that every one weighed in opposition to granting the TRO or injunction. Irreparable hurt was deemed insufficiently proven, given the delay and availability of damages. The court docket handled the TRO and preliminary injunction requests underneath the identical requirements, emphasizing injunctive aid as an “extraordinary treatment” not awarded flippantly.
This ruling comes amid a broader context for FRTs. In 2025, following authorized challenges and a Supreme Court docket choice in a associated bump inventory case, the Division of Justice underneath the Trump administration settled litigation with Uncommon Breed, permitting resumption of FRT gross sales underneath sure situations, together with Uncommon Breed’s dedication to implement its patents aggressively (and never develop pistol variations). That settlement has formed current non-public enforcement actions, with Uncommon Breed pursuing a number of infringement fits in opposition to opponents.
The denial in Wyoming marks a setback for Uncommon Breed’s efforts to shortly halt a lower-priced rival, probably preserving market competitors within the FRT house. The case stays ongoing, with potential for additional discovery, declare development, and trial on the deserves. Neither facet has indicated speedy plans for attraction of the injunction denial, although preliminary injunction rulings are appealable.
Business observers word this highlights tensions between patent holders in search of to guard improvements (particularly post-ATF settlement obligations) and opponents providing arguably prior-art-based or otherwise designed alternate options at decrease costs. The result might affect different pending FRT-related patent disputes.
ATF Intervenes in Pressured Reset Set off Patent Lawsuit for “Public Security”
DOJ Submitting on Pressured Reset Triggers Contradicts Pledges and Complicates Midterms
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA teacher and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed individuals from all walks of life, and on the Structure. John lives in Northern Virginia together with his spouse and sons, observe him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
![Analysis: Non-Resident Gun Carry Wins Start Stringing Together [Member Exclusive]](https://i3.wp.com/cdn.thereload.com/app/uploads/2021/05/20210525_140956-scaled.jpg?w=120&resize=120,86&ssl=1)
