AUSTIN, TX – SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
On August 31st, the Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), filed a Statement of Interest in the consolidated patent litigation brought by Rare Breed and ABC IP against numerous manufacturers and resellers of forced reset trigger and selector devices, including Atrius.
For more information about this case, you can find more details on the following docket:
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)
Presiding Judge: Honorable Amos L. Mazzant III
Title: In Re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation
Case No. 4:26-md-03176-ALM MDL 3176
(To access these court documents, a PACER account may be necessary.)
In this open letter to the firearms industry and the 2A community at large, we’d like to address the highly unusual nature of this federal intervention, clarify key distinctions in our product line, and raise critical concerns about free-market competition and executive agency overreach.
1. A Bureaucratic Statement Narrow in Legal Scope
In its Statement of Interest, the Government urged the Court to weigh the public-interest factor in Rare Breed’s favor but expressly declined to take a position on whether an injunction should ultimately issue:
“We do not take a position on any of the other factors for granting a preliminary injunction or on the ultimate question of whether the court should exercise its discretion to issue a preliminary injunction.”
That seems odd — especially when no safety incident involving Atrius was described, and the Atrius Forced Reset Selector (“FRS”) was not classified as unlawful. The safety concern raised in the Statement of Interest relates to the use of forced reset triggers in handguns and is addressed by a specific commitment in a 2025 settlement between the Government and a settling party, specifically, the settling party “agreed not to designforced reset triggers for handguns, as defined by the Settlement Agreement.”
Atrius does not design or market FRTs for handguns as defined in that Settlement Agreement and has no plans to do so. The Statement of Interest identified no safety concern specific to Atrius or the Atrius FRS.
The Statement of Interest is a litigation filing, not a rulemaking or judicial determination.
It is not a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) like the industry saw in the controversial 2021R-05F and 2021R-08F Rules that the ATF issued during COVID. It does not establish that Atrius infringes a valid and enforceable patent claim or relieve the parties seeking an injunction of their burden to satisfy the applicable legal requirements.
Ultimately, the government’s filing does not decide the merits of patent validity, nor does it establish that any infringement has occurred. The Statement of Interest merely conveys an agency’s opinion on the public-interest factor for the court’s consideration.
The Statement of Interest does not establish that Atrius infringes any asserted patents.
The determination of patent validity and infringement in this litigation rests with the Court based on hard evidence and technical engineering, not administrative filings.
2. The Atrius FRS is Not an FRT
Atrius firmly rejects any attempts to conflate its proprietary design with traditional Forced Reset Trigger (FRT) mechanisms. Atrius products are engineered and marketed as a Forced Reset Selector (FRS).
Atrius’s position is that the FRS embodies a distinct selector-based design, with material structural and operational differences from the mechanisms required by the asserted patent claims. Those differences are central to Atrius’s non-infringement position.
Atrius maintains that its FRS does not infringe the asserted patents.
3. Government-Backed Monopolies Restrict Competition Which Harms the Public Interest
The government asserts in its filing that the “public interest” is served by curbing the production of forced reset technology, which somehow justifies them weighing in on a private civil matter. Atrius vigorously rejects this premise.
Atrius Development Group believes that fair competition breeds excellence. Executive agencies never serve the public interest when they manipulate private patent enforcement to create a government-backed monopoly. We strongly object to the government using private patent enforcement to advance broader regulatory objectives.
Allowing a single favored entity to market a product category while using agencyinfluence to suppress independent competitors through civil lawfare directly harms American consumers, restricts lawful commerce, and distorts the free market. True public interest relies on fair competition, open commerce, and standard application of the law — not broader agency policy goals standing in for proof of patent infringement.
4. An Irregular Agency Action: Questions of Authority and Intent
The involvement of a federal law enforcement agency in a private civil patent lawsuit represents a bizarre, highly unusual deviation from normal judicial processes. The ATF would have you believe it has the authority to regulate and restrict commerce without congressional approval.
Patent infringement disputes are private civil matters between commercial entities. The ATF is an administrative regulatory agency, not an arbiter of patent claims or commercial market exclusivity. For a regulatory body to step into civil intellectual property cases… particularly after federal courts repeatedly struck down its statutory authority to regulate these components as machine guns begs obvious, troubling questions:
- Why is a federal law enforcement agency weighing in on private commercial property rights?
- What operational or policy objective drives an executive agency to use private corporate litigation as a back-door mechanism to restrict components it could not legally ban through public statute?
This extraordinary intervention raises legitimate concerns about using private patent enforcement to achieve broader regulatory outcomes outside the legislative process.
We are deeply frustrated that the government has chosen to support Rare Breed’s position on the public-interest issue while the patent allegations against Atrius remain contested. The government’s preference for limiting product availability does not answer whether our product infringes any asserted patent.
Defending Innovation, the Second Amendment, and True American Principles Atrius Development Group will not back down. Many on our team are combat veterans who fought overseas for real American ideals and true freedom. The freedoms we fought for include the freedom to compete in a fair, open marketplace and equal treatment under the law.
We stand squarely behind our partners and customers, and we will vigorously defend our position that the FRS does not infringe the asserted patents and that the asserted patents are invalid.We look forward to prevailing in court and continuing to supply law-abiding citizens with premier, fully compliant firearm components.
For more information about the company please visit www.atrius.dev.
