The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will not publicly identify which forced-reset products it believes are machine guns, but the agency is asking a federal court to help Rare Breed Triggers shut competing products out of the market.
Atrius Development Group fired back Thursday, accusing the Department of Justice and ATF of using Rare Breed’s private patent litigation as a backdoor means of restricting forced-reset technology.
The dispute is part of In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, a consolidated multidistrict case pending before Chief U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant in the Eastern District of Texas. Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP are asserting seven patents against multiple manufacturers and sellers of forced-reset-related products, including Atrius.
DOJ entered the case on ATF’s behalf through an August 31 Statement of Interest. The government says it has a “strong interest” in discouraging the unregulated manufacture of FRTs that allegedly infringe Rare Breed’s patents.
The government is not merely recognizing Rare Breed’s right to protect a valid patent. ATF is urging the court to treat the removal of competing products from the market as a public benefit.
“The ATF has an interest in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs,” the government told the court.
DOJ went further, arguing that successful Rare Breed patent-enforcement actions “would support ATF’s public safety efforts” if they result in injunctions against third-party manufacturers.
Atrius Says ATF Is Using Patent Law as Backdoor Regulation
In its September 24 response, Atrius called the intervention an improper attempt to manipulate private patent enforcement and suppress lawful competition.
“Executive agencies never serve the public interest when they manipulate private patent enforcement to create a government-backed monopoly,” the company stated.
Atrius argues that its product is a Forced Reset Selector, or FRS, rather than a traditional forced reset trigger. The company says its selector-based design has material structural and operational differences from the mechanisms covered by Rare Breed’s asserted patent claims.
Those are Atrius’s positions, not findings the court has made. Atrius maintains that its FRS does not infringe the patents and that the asserted patents are invalid. Rare Breed and ABC IP contend that competing devices fall within their patent rights. Those questions will have to be decided through evidence, claim construction, and the normal patent-litigation process—not through an ATF policy declaration.
The government acknowledges that limitation. Its Statement of Interest does not take a position on whether Atrius or any other defendant infringed a valid patent. DOJ also declined to address most of the factors required for a preliminary injunction or say whether the court should ultimately issue one.
Instead, the government confined its argument to the “public interest” factor and asked the court to weigh that factor heavily in Rare Breed’s favor.
That is precisely what makes the intervention so troubling. ATF wants the practical benefit of removing products from the market without first proving that those products are illegal—or even taking a position on whether they infringe Rare Breed’s patents.
Rare Breed’s Settlement Became an ATF Enforcement Tool
The federal government’s argument grows out of its May 2025 settlement with Rare Breed. That agreement ended several years of litigation after a federal court rejected ATF’s sweeping attempt to classify forced reset triggers as machine guns.
Under the settlement, Rare Breed agreed not to develop or design FRTs for handguns as defined by the agreement. It also agreed to make reasonable efforts to enforce its patents and seek injunctions against other parties manufacturing, selling, or distributing FRTs.
ATF is now citing that second promise as a reason courts should assist Rare Breed’s patent campaign.
There is nothing improper about a company enforcing a valid patent against an actual infringer. The constitutional power to protect inventors exists to encourage useful innovation. The problem begins when a federal enforcement agency tries to transform one company’s private patent rights into a substitute for legislation or lawful rulemaking.
Congress has not prohibited forced reset triggers. A federal court held in National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland that the devices at issue did not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because they still fired only one shot for each function of the trigger. The government eventually settled rather than continue its appeal.
Now ATF is attempting to achieve through private injunctions at least part of what it failed to achieve through direct enforcement: fewer competing forced-reset products in the hands of American gun owners.
AmmoLand previously reported on both the government’s January intervention in Rare Breed’s lawsuit against Hoffman Tactical and its August filing in the consolidated Texas litigation.
ATF Says Some FRTs May Still Be Machine Guns
Atrius’s response arrived the same day AmmoLand reported new comments from ATF Director Robert Cekada at The Briefing, an FFL compliance event in Dallas.
Cekada said some products sold as FRTs are genuine forced reset triggers, while others on the market may be machine guns. He refused to identify the products or designs ATF believes cross that line. According to Cekada, the agency will examine how each mechanism works and apply the statutory definition of a machine gun.
That means a manufacturer cannot settle the classification question simply by calling its product an FRS instead of an FRT. It also means ATF has not publicly classified the Atrius FRS as a machine gun. Nothing in the government’s Statement of Interest makes such a determination, and DOJ identified no safety incident or criminal misuse involving Atrius or its selector.
Nevertheless, gun owners and firearm businesses are again being left to guess. ATF claims some unnamed products may be prohibited machine guns while simultaneously supporting civil lawsuits that could remove competing products without a classification ruling.
That is not regulatory clarity. It is the same dangerous uncertainty firearm owners have endured for years: the government refuses to draw a clear public line, retains the threat of criminal enforcement, and then invokes “public safety” to support restrictions it has not persuaded Congress to enact.
The Second Amendment does not authorize ATF to decide which lawful firearm technologies Americans should be permitted to buy. Patent disputes should turn on valid patents and actual infringement. Machine-gun classifications must turn on the words Congress enacted—whether a weapon fires more than one shot automatically by a single function of the trigger—not an agency’s hostility to rate of fire.
Atrius says it will continue defending its FRS, its customers, and its right to compete. The company is entitled to make that case in court without ATF placing a federal thumb on the scale merely because the agency wants fewer forced-reset products available to the public.
ATF Says Suppressor and SBR Guidance Could Arrive Within Weeks
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
