IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Fla.: Preliminary injunction granted in gun trigger patent dispute., (Jan 4, 2022)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A seller of patented after-market triggers showed that it was likely to succeed on the merits against a competitor whose product was plainly copied from the original and fell within the plain language of the patent claims.

A manufacturer of a trigger device was entitled to a preliminary injunction, the federal district court in Gainesville, Florida, has held. The allegedly infringing product was plainly copied from the patent-holder’s product and the patent holder was likely to succeed on the merits (Rare Breed Triggers, LLC v. Big Daddy Enterprises, Inc., December 30, 2021, Hinkle, R.).

ABC IP LLC (ABC) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 10.514,223 (the ’223 patent), which covered a forced reset trigger device used to increase the rate of fire of AR-15 pattern firearms. Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, (Rare Breed) was the exclusive licensee of that patent. Wide Open Enterprises, LLC (Wide Open) was a competitor who recently entered the market with a product the Court described as being “plainly copied” from Rare Breed’s product and distributed by Big Daddy Enterprises, Inc. (Big Daddy). ABC and Rare Breed sued Wide Open and Big Daddy for patent infringement and sought a preliminary injunction blocking sale of the allegedly infringing product. The court applied the traditional four factor test.

Likelihood of success on the merits. The court reviewed the claim language and held that no claim construction was necessary as the meaning would be plain to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Defendants argued that the phrase “the contact causing the trigger member to be forced to the set position” needed construction and should be construed to mean that the hammer’s contact with the trigger member must be the sole cause of the trigger’s movement. The court simply found without discussion that this was not bound by the plain language of the claim term. Absent a claim construction issue, the defendant’s product clearly infringed the patent. Defendants raised two invalidity arguments, but both were tied up with their claim construction, which the court had already discarded. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits.

Irreparable harm. Rare Breed argued that it pursued a policy of deliberate scarcity in order to keep its prices high, and that allowing defendants to sell their product would defeat Rare Breed’s pricing strategy. The court agreed and also noted that Wide Open was established solely to sell the infringing product. If a judgment were entered it would likely be uncollectable because Wide Open would simply close its doors and walk away, so refusing the injunction would cause irreparable harm.

Balance of hardships and public interest. The court found that these two factors were essentially a draw: both would favor the party who was ultimately correct. Because it had found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, the court resolved the tie in favor of the plaintiffs.

Finding that all four factors were in favor, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

The case is No. 1:21-cv-00149-RH-GRJ.

Attorneys: Charles D. Pfister (Wood Herron & Evans LLP) for Rare Breed Triggers, LLC. Daniel Curtis Johnson (Carlton Fields, P.A.) for Big Daddy Enterprises, Inc.

Companies: Rare Breed Triggers, LLC; Big Daddy Enterprises, Inc.

Cases: Patent FloridaNews GCNNews