ABC IP, LLC, et al., v. Freshwater, No. 4:26-cv-00930 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2026)

2TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-cv-693 v.

AR-TT, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; CLAUSEN INC., a Washington corporation; JONATHAN CLAUSEN, an individual; and JODI CLAUSEN, an individual, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-755 v.

ANTONIO CHOUKAIR, AN

INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A ASTRO TACTICAL,

Defendant. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-680 v.

TGR SERVICES, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and TGR VENTURES, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendants.

3TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-761 v.

AR-15 GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA,

INC., a Georgia corporation; and CHRIS ALLEN WALTZ, an individual, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-768 v.

WEBCORP, INC., a Missouri corporation; and THOMAS KIRGIN, JR., an individual, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-707 v.

HAWKPHIN SALES, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company; and ADAM GERLEMAN, an individual, Defendants.

4TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-799 v.

SHOOTING TARGETS USA, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company; and MICHAEL JOSEPH SPEENEY, an individual, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-831 v.

EAST COAST CERAKOTE LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company; and GAVIN LUZIER, an individual, Defendant. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-926 v.

ATLANTIC FIREARMS, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, and BLAINE BUNTING, an individual, Defendants.

5TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-954 v.

VELOCITY AMMUNITION SALES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; and DAVID ALLEN HAZLETT, an individual, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-944 v.

QUICK RESPONSE FIREARMS, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company; DANIEL CORSINI, an individual; and JERRIED “JERRY” BROWN, an individual, Defendant. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-945 v.

INOCULUM-GROUP LLC, an Idaho limited liability company; and RYAN K. JACOBSON, an individual, Defendant.

6TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-930 v.

DAVID FRESHWATER, an individual, d/b/a IDAHO ARMS & AMMO,

Defendant. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-928 v.

SKER INDUSTRIES, LLC, a New York limited liability company; and JORDAN LINSKER, an individual, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1009 v.

VANCE OUTDOORS INC. et. Al., Defendants.

7TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1106 v.

2A NINJA LLC, a Missouri limited liability company; and ETHAN ALEXANDER COOK, an individual, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1013 v.

DIRTY BIRD INDUSTRIES, LLC, a California limited liability company; JAY PITCHER, an individua; DUSTIN PITCHER, an individual; and LORI PITCHER, an individual, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1068 v.

MGCC Enterprises LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, d/b/a Flip Ammo, Defendant.

8TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1091 v.

ODIN WORKS, INC., an Idaho corporation; and THOMAS HINES, an individual, Defendant. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1129 v.

COMBAT ARMORY LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1134 v.

BILSON ARMS, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company; and JOHN W. ANGERS JR., an individual, Defendants.

9TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1136 v.

STAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, d/b/a STAR DEV LLC; and SARAH STOKES, an individual, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-521 v.

OPTICS PLANET, INC., d/b/a ECENTRIA, an Illinois corporation, Defendant. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1120 v.

FIREARMS DIRECT CLUB LLC, a Florida limited liability company; KIMBERLY SMITH, an individual; and TAYLOR SPEARS, an individual, Defendants.

10TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-1277 v.

MUFFINTOP TACTICAL LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and JASON RAMSDEN, an individual, Defendant. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-608 v.

CLOAK INDUSTRIES, INC., an Idaho corporation, and WILLIAM C. KING JR., an individual,, Defendants. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-694 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.

11TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-695 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. ABC IP, LLC, and RARE BREED TRIGGERS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 4:26-CV-705 v.

CANUCK TACTICAL LLC, d/b/a RANGESPORT AMERICA LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company, Defendants. 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 cases12 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)).

13ANALYSIS

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,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 at15 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.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.