The Super Safety Lawsuit

Añadido: 2026-05-17

[00:00:00]December 23rd, 2025. Rare Breed Triggers sued me for three counts of patent infringement, counts of tortious interference, defamation, violations of the Sherman Act, unfair competition, [music] and others. First, a little background for those who may not be familiar. In 2022, I invented, designed, and developed the Super Safety, [music] which is an active reset trigger which uses a cam and a lever and a standard fire control group. It works quite well.

[00:00:27]Most of you are probably familiar with it.

[00:00:28]>> [music] >> In 2023, I released the Super Safety as a free and open-source design >> [music] >> which anyone could manufacture.

[00:00:48]In the spring of 2025, Rare Breed began to allege that [music] companies manufacturing the Super Safety were infringing a patent which had recently issued, which they owned, which is US patent 12038247.

[00:01:03]This patent covers [music] a improvement of an older expired patent from 2003.

[00:01:09]The older patent uses a cam mounted up above the trigger, [music] kind of like an auto sear, that pushes on a fin mounted to the trigger which causes the trigger to [music] reset in a way similar to the Super Safety. The fin is able to move forward and backwards to engage or disengage the active reset [music] mode. 247 uses a different method of selection where the cam [music] is always resetting the trigger, but the disconnector is enabled or disabled [music] in the same way as an M-16. This way, even if the trigger is reset in standard mode, the disconnector still holds the hammer and the trigger is not actually fully reset. [music] In force reset mode, the disconnector is disabled such that the cam is able to reset the trigger and the disconnector is not there to prevent the full reset.

[00:01:53]This patent was used against the Super Safety >> [music] >> um in 2025 before I was sued. In December when the lawsuit was actually filed, this was one of the patents which I was accused of infringing. Interestingly, the the arguments used in the lawsuit against me were completely different than the arguments used earlier in 2025 against the other companies. I suspect because of the crushing video I made in August of 2025 dismantling the flawed arguments that were used in the first wave of lawsuits against the Super Safety using the 247 patent. The second patent I was accused of infringing was US Patent [music] 12031784.

[00:02:31]This was the first time the Super Safety was accused of infringing this patent.

[00:02:35]The earlier cases against other Super Safety manufacturers were not accused of infringing this patent until after I was sued. This patent is for a device [music] to make the original Rare Breed FRT compatible with LR-308s and other guns that have zero trip clearance. So, the trip is the rear point on the bolt carrier group which traditionally tripped an auto sear. On an AR-15 it sits below the hammer cam surface so it has plenty [music] of clearance. On an LR-308 because it's kind of a crappy design, this uh trip point has practically no clearance. It's like three or four thousandths of an inch. [music] So, the 784 patent has a deflectable hat on it [music] which gets knocked backwards as the bolt carrier moves to the rear so as not to interfere with the hammer cam surface on the bolt carrier. But, when the bolt carrier returns forward again, that hat pops back up allowing the sear trip to contact it and [music] unlock the trigger. It's pretty straightforward.

[00:03:29]That's what 784 covers. Rare Breed uh accuses the Super Safety of infringing that [music] patent because the lever on the Super Safety wiggles a little bit.

[00:03:37]It has nothing to do with uh the sear clearance issue and it is not covered by the patent, but they are attempting to twist it and apply it to the Super Safety just to add another count to the case.

[00:03:48]The third patent the Super Safety was accused of infringing is the expired 723 patent. And it's not directly related to the preliminary injunction, which we're going to discuss, because it's expired.

[00:03:57]Only an active patent can be used in a preliminary injunction, cuz you have to be actively causing [music] damage to someone who owns an active and valid patent. Rare Breed has spent a significant amount of time trying to claim that I have deliberately infringed their patents in an attempt to damage them. This is clearly false, and as an example of this, we can show how they are twisting my language. I have said numerous times that one of the motives for releasing the Super Safety was to make it impossible for the ATF to illegally go after force reset triggers by ensuring that everyone has access to them. Rare Breed has attempted to twist this language to say that I released the Super Safety in the attempt to make it impossible for them to enforce their patents. This is ridiculous and untrue.

[00:04:39]So, that was pretty funny the way they're twisting these words, even though they probably know the actual true cause, because they had the same problem with the ATF that the rest of us had.

[00:04:46]The first thing that Rare Breed did is they asked the judge to issue a temporary restraining order preventing me from beginning selling, claiming that it was an emergency and I was going to damage their market. This, of course, is despite the many other companies actively selling without any injunctions against them.

[00:05:00]The judge issued this temporary restraining order on the basis that it was only for 2 weeks and [music] it couldn't possibly hurt me. There were really no consideration of the facts here because it was only for 2 weeks.

[00:05:10]The 2 weeks was leading up to the preliminary injunction hearing where Rare Breed was asking for an injunction for the duration of the case to prevent me from selling the Super [music] Safety. We, of course, produced our arguments for the case. They produced their arguments for the case, and we prepared to argue the suit [music] in court. Leading right up to the actual date of the hearing, the US Department of Justice issued a letter of interest stating that the ATF has an interest in regulating the sale of FRTs.

[00:05:38]Mind you, this is despite a federal court in Texas >> [music] >> stating that the ATF has no interest in regulating force reset triggers. During the preliminary injunction hearing, Rare Breed spent a significant amount of time trying to paint me as a social media influencer and a YouTuber, trying to claim that my motive was getting views so I could get ad revenue, and that just simply getting clicks on the internet was basically my entire life. This was hilarious and broke down very quickly when they learned that I was unmonetized on all platforms, >> [music] >> and I did not run any of the Facebook groups. In today's video, I don't want to get too in-depth into the actual arguments we made in the hearing and all of the different back and forth we have because we would be here all day. I do want to hit on a few funny points. One of them was the expert which Rare Breed was paying to testify in this case in their favor, and I have some of the transcripts here, and it's pretty funny stuff. We were trying to use the older expired 723 patent as a prior art for their arguments against us. In other words, we were trying to state that their arguments that covered the super safety also covered the older patent.

[00:06:43]Our argument was specifically that the older 723 [music] patent from 2003 is actually a three-position force reset trigger. It's very clear in the patent that this is the case. There is a fin on top of the trigger which slides forward and backwards to selectively enable or disable the force reset mode. When we asked their expert what this fin moving did, he had a couple different answers. One of them was that it put the firearm on safe. The other one was that the gun was out of ammunition, which made no sense at all.

[00:07:11]I'm going to read here one of his statements, which was pretty funny. Uh and he says in court it was even better.

[00:07:17]I wish we had this on video and it would have recorded it would have been deeply hilarious. But, uh he states, "It is my opinion that when that lock, see that?

[00:07:25]The question and the doesn't add up to where that that cam is located."

[00:07:31]Just abysmal garbage, and he did this for like 30 minutes, just kind of not answering questions and and trying to [music] stutter around things and claim that a fin moving was putting it on safe, even though that's what the safety is for. There was another statement he made here, which was also pretty funny, which is uh we were stating that he was stating that the disconnector does not catch the hammer, and then hence it can't be semi-automatic. Mind you, there is a disconnector in this [music] 723 patent. Uh and and we're going through basically arguing that those parts appear to be custom parts, and he agrees they appear to be custom parts. And um and right here we see a disconnector, which which the expert agreed with. We asked, "In your opinion, would they have made custom parts with those hooks if they did nothing?" We then asked him, "Okay, well, in your experience of manufacturing or what you've observed, is it normal to spend the money to put non-functioning parts into a device?"

[00:08:21]His answer was good. "Well, it depends on who's making it. It depends if it's sourced out, and depends on who how it has to be manufactured."

[00:08:28]That was his answer. So So, pretty good stuff. The The expert attempted to support their position, um and you can see it was it was it was pretty good.

[00:08:37]I'll have to do another video breaking down all of that in more detail, but that's something for a different day. I just wanted to share those highlights with you because they were pretty entertaining. Uh the complete failure to make any valid arguments and simply to basically lie and stutter around the issue. After the hearing, we were very positive because uh the plaintiff's arguments were deeply flawed and very weak. However, the judge, after several delays and postponements, eventually issued a preliminary injunction.

[00:09:03]Unfortunately, he did not write any rulings on this. He simply copied and pasted uh Rare Breed's findings of facts into his ruling and issued that. And we really don't know the actual reason the judge issued it. But, it's pretty clear that it was motivated by the letter of interest from the Department of Justice.

[00:09:19]Because I was unable to sell my super safety to fund the lawsuit, I had to do a fundraiser. Uh we requested $185,000, and have and have raised at this point just over 200,000, which is incredibly awesome. Thank you so much, guys, for supporting us. We have enough now to kind of push the appeal forward, and I'm working on other means of get get generating revenue to continue forward without needing more public funds. So, right now, we've got the fundraiser completed. We actually met our goal within 2 weeks or right at 2 weeks, which was just incredibly awesome. It was a huge blessing getting those funds so that we could [music] continue this lawsuit cuz without that, we were pretty much screwed right then and there. But, we've been moving forward, and I want to update you guys on a few things that have happened. [music] We spent some time trying to get a bunch of the garbage defamation and tortious interference claims dismissed because [music] they're ridiculous.

[00:10:09]Um and there was some back and forth on that. Rarebreed tried to claim that another company ASD was colluding with us and hence violating the preliminary injunction that was issued by the judge.

[00:10:20]This, of course, is false. We wasted some time going back and forth on that.

[00:10:23]And we have now moved to the Eastern District of Texas, and that's a multi-district litigation that was instigated by other parties, and we've kind of basically what's happening is all of the different Super City cases are being pulled together in one court.

[00:10:36]Which [music] is kind of generally bad, but for us, it's a good thing because we're going to get a different judge who hopefully won't be swayed by the Department of Justice as easily. We are filing appeal on the preliminary injunction. That is moving forward, and that will hopefully turn it around. But, of course, those things all take time.

[00:10:52][music] Everything in federal court is incredibly slow, especially when multi-district litigation is involved.

[00:10:57]So, be patient, guys. Things are moving very slowly, but I will keep you updated because things are moving ahead, and hopefully we'll get some positive movement here pretty soon. Stay tuned for more updates, as well as more detailed dives into some of the things that have happened. And also, I have a big announcement coming up soon, so watch out for that. And you guys are going to like it. It's It's pretty fun.

[00:11:15]Thanks for watching.