Rare Breed vs Partisan Trigger Lawsuit: What the FRT Legal Battle Really Means for the Firearms Industry

Rare Breed vs Partisan Trigger Lawsuit: What the FRT Legal Battle Really Means for the Firearms Industry

The ongoing legal battle between Rare Breed Triggers and Peak Tactical, operating under the Partisan Triggers brand, has become one of the most closely watched firearms patent disputes in recent history. Often referred to as the “Partisan Disruptor lawsuit,” this case goes far beyond a single product dispute and instead strikes at the heart of forced reset trigger (FRT) technology, patent overreach, competition in the firearms industry, and whether patent law is being weaponized to suppress innovation rather than protect it.

As a retailer and supporter of Partisan Triggers, it is critical to understand what is actually happening in court, what the testimony really showed, and why this case increasingly appears to favor Partisan and Peak Tactical rather than Rare Breed.

Background: Rare Breed Triggers vs Peak Tactical / Partisan Triggers

Rare Breed Triggers, through its licensing entity ABC IP, LLC, filed suit against Peak Tactical alleging that the Partisan Disruptor trigger infringes multiple Rare Breed patents related to forced reset trigger technology. Rare Breed claims the Partisan Disruptor is “functionally identical” to the Rare Breed FRT-15L3 and therefore violates several later-issued patents covering force reset operation.

Peak Tactical strongly disputes these claims, arguing that the Partisan Disruptor is not a forced reset trigger at all, but rather an assisted reset trigger with materially different mechanical operation, geometry, and function. Peak Tactical further argues that Rare Breed’s patents suffer from serious validity issues due to prior art, undisclosed earlier designs, and overbroad claim language.

February 4, 2026 Hearing: A Critical Moment in the Case

On February 4, 2026, the court held an extensive hearing on Rare Breed’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction that would have immediately halted the sale of the Partisan Disruptor trigger. The hearing spanned several hours across multiple sessions and included live testimony, expert declarations, CAD drawings, animations, and video exhibits.

Most notably, the judge declined to issue an immediate TRO and instead took the motion under advisement, meaning no emergency relief was granted. In federal patent litigation, the failure to issue a TRO is often a strong indicator that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a clear likelihood of success on the merits.

Testimony That Favored Partisan Triggers

Peak Tactical’s witnesses were widely viewed as credible, technically grounded, and consistent.

Michael Stakes, an engineer with extensive experience in trigger design and previously associated with the TacCon 3MR platform, provided detailed testimony explaining the difference between assisted reset triggers and force reset triggers. He explained that the Partisan Disruptor does not forcibly drive the trigger shoe forward in the manner required by Rare Breed’s patent claims. Instead, it allows reset assistance while still requiring user input, which is a critical legal distinction.

Stakes also introduced defense video exhibits showing the Partisan Disruptor operating in assisted reset mode and in standard semi-automatic mode. These videos directly challenged Rare Breed’s claim that the trigger is functionally identical to the FRT-15L3.

Ben Woods, owner of Darkflame Innovations and Peak Tactical, provided testimony clarifying the corporate structure behind Partisan Triggers, the development history of the Disruptor, and the significant financial investment already made into the product. Woods testified that Peak Tactical has invested approximately $1.5 million into the company and that an injunction would likely destroy the business entirely.

Serious Issues with Rare Breed’s Expert Testimony

Rare Breed relied heavily on expert testimony from Brian Luettke, who claimed that the Partisan Disruptor and Rare Breed FRT-15L3 are functionally identical and differ only in housing shape. However, under scrutiny, Luettke admitted that he relied on Rare Breed’s legal counsel to explain certain patent infringement principles.

This raised red flags regarding the independence and reliability of the expert opinion. In patent cases, experts are expected to provide technical analysis, not legal conclusions fed by attorneys. This issue alone significantly weakens Rare Breed’s likelihood of success.

Assisted Reset vs Forced Reset: The Core Technical Issue

One of the most important aspects of this case is the distinction between a forced reset trigger and an assisted reset trigger.

A forced reset trigger physically drives the trigger forward after each shot through mechanical force generated by the cycling action of the firearm. This is the concept Rare Breed claims to own through its patents.

An assisted reset trigger, by contrast, aids reset but does not forcibly push the trigger into the reset position in the same manner. User input remains necessary, and the internal geometry operates differently.

Peak Tactical has consistently maintained, and supported with engineering evidence, that the Partisan Disruptor falls squarely into the assisted reset category and therefore does not meet the limitations of Rare Breed’s patent claims.

Prior Art and the ‘067 Patent Problem for Rare Breed

Perhaps most damaging to Rare Breed’s case is the issue of prior art.

Peak Tactical revealed that it owns the older ‘067 patent, which predates Rare Breed’s patents and covers similar trigger concepts. Evidence presented showed that Rare Breed previously attempted to acquire this patent, suggesting awareness of its relevance.

Peak Tactical further argues that Rare Breed’s FRT-15L3 itself may infringe the older ‘067 patent, flipping the infringement narrative entirely. If true, this would severely undermine Rare Breed’s enforcement efforts and expose their patents to invalidity challenges.

Additionally, prior commercial products such as the TacCon 3MR trigger were raised as undisclosed prior art that may render Rare Breed’s patents obvious or overly broad.

Irreparable Harm: A Major Failure for Rare Breed

To win an injunction, Rare Breed needed to prove irreparable harm. The defense convincingly showed that this standard was not met.

Rare Breed receives fixed royalties on its triggers. Any alleged lost sales are calculable and compensable with money. Rare Breed also delayed filing suit and previously sued multiple other sellers, including HK Parts and Orion Arms, without seeking emergency injunctions. These facts undermine any claim of urgent or irreparable harm.

Expert testimony further demonstrated that Rare Breed’s alleged damages could be fully quantified, which is fatal to an injunction request.

Broader Pattern of Litigation

The Partisan Disruptor lawsuit is part of a broader litigation campaign by Rare Breed that includes lawsuits against Hoffman Tactical, HK Parts, and Orion Arms. Many of these cases involve similar “super safety” or FRT-adjacent products and are being considered for consolidation into multi-district litigation.

This pattern has led many industry observers to question whether Rare Breed is using patent litigation as a competitive weapon rather than a legitimate defense of innovation.

Why This Case Favors Partisan Triggers

Based on the testimony, evidence, and procedural posture, the Partisan Disruptor case increasingly appears to favor Peak Tactical and Partisan Triggers. The lack of an immediate TRO, the strength of the engineering testimony, the serious issues with Rare Breed’s experts, and the unresolved prior art problems all weigh heavily against Rare Breed’s claims.

For consumers, retailers, and the firearms industry as a whole, this case may ultimately reaffirm that competition, engineering innovation, and lawful product development cannot be shut down simply through aggressive litigation tactics.

Final Thoughts

The Rare Breed vs Partisan Trigger lawsuit is not just about one trigger. It is about the future of trigger innovation, patent boundaries, and whether established players can block newer, better-engineered alternatives through the courts.

As this case continues, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Partisan Disruptor is not a copy, not an infringement, and not what Rare Breed claims it to be. It is a distinct, thoughtfully engineered product that stands on its own merits.

We will continue to follow this case closely and provide updates as soon as the court issues its written ruling.

Want more info on the best FRT’s to buy in 2026