Lawsuit update as of 2/14/2026:
I was sued for several counts of alleged patent infringement along with a number of other allegations on December 23rd 2025. Plaintiff alleges that my Super Safety design infringes three of their patents:
US 7,398,723 is an expired patent invented by Brian Blakley in 2003. It describes a repeat reset trigger for the AR-15 using a trigger reset cam mounted much like an auto sear in the upper portions of the FCG pocket to push down on a trigger extender and reset the trigger. The active reset can be selected or deselected by the trigger extender being moved forward or rearward upon the trigger via the safety selector. Plaintiff purchased this patent from Mr. Blakely in April 2022 only a couple years before it expired in 2024.
US 12,031,784 is an active patent filed by plaintiff with a priory date of November 2021 naming Lawrence DeMonico as the inventor. It describes a modified locking bar for use in the “original FRT-15 patent”, US 10,514,223. The modification consists of a separate upper portion that can fold to the rear allowing AR-10 bolt carriers to pass without interference, but then pop back up to engage with the sear trip surface. This is needed on AR-10 rifles because the sear trip is not substantially lower than the forward hammer cam surface.
US 12,038,247 is an active patent filed by plaintiff with a priority date of September 8th 2022 naming Brian Blakley as the inventor. It describes a very similar trigger to that of US 7,398,723 but without the movable trigger extender. Instead, the disconnector is disabled using the same mechanism as the M-16 to select between standard and forced reset.
Some have mistakenly believed that US 12,529,538 naming Cameron Smith as the inventor was asserted against me, this is not the case. For those who don’t know, this is the patent claiming inventorship of my Super Safety with a priority date of December 4th 2023.
Does the Super Safety infringe? Plaintiff alleges that because the Super Safety has a cam that resets the trigger it infringes on claim 15 of US 12,038,247 which requires that the “disconnector hook is prevented from catching said hammer hook.” In effect they argue that because the trigger is being reset by the cam, the disconnector is being prevented from catching the hammer. It should be noted that this argument would apply to any selectable repeat reset trigger. The fact of the matter is that prevented from catching has nothing to do with the trigger being reset, but rather the disconnector being disabled with the M-16 like system. The Super Safety does not disable the disconnector. There is more to why we don’t infringe, but this is the basics.
Check out the patent for yourself: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12038247B2
Plaintiffs also allege that because the Super Safety lever wiggles a little bit in the dovetail joint it infringes claim 1 of US 12,031,784 which requires a “upwardly extending deflectable portion” which moves between “an extended position and a deflected position.” In effect they argue that as the bolt carrier moves back forward and rotates the lever slightly forward without rotating the cam, the lever is being deflected from an extended to a deflected position. This is absurd as deflect means the upper portion of the locking bar folding to the rear allowing the bolt carrier to pass to prevent interference. The slight movement of the Super Safety lever does not result in an extended or deflected positions in anyway, and certainly does not result in the lever deflecting out of the path of the carrier.
Read the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12031784B1
It is interesting to note that despite filing numerous lawsuits against others for infringement of US 12,038,247, the plaintiff failed to assert US 12,031,784 until they sued me. Perhaps this new assertation was an attempt to bog my legal team down with extra work, increasing my legal expenses?
Read the full original complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tned.122447/gov.uscourts.tned.122447.1.0_1.pdf
Why then did we lose the Preliminary Injunction? Do I have bad lawyers? Far from it, we coherently argued the clear case for non-infringement, yet the Injunction was still granted. Something that may have influenced this was a Statement of Interest from the US Department of Justice stating that “…plaintiffs’ patent enforcement actions would support ATF’s public safety efforts…” and that it would be in the interest of the public for me to be prevented from sharing my design files and selling the Super Safety.
Read the statement: https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/USA_Hoffman.pdf
Plaintiff has also spent considerable effort attempting to defame me as being a content creator who runs to the YouTube camera to make quick money and that I have deliberately attacked their reputation. They go as far as to claim I was aware of their patent when I released the Super Safety and that my intention was “for no other purpose than to deliberately and irreparably harm Plaintiffs’ business, sales, reputation, and good-will.” This is of course false. Such low arguments are surprising from a plaintiff who only desires to protect their intellectual property.
Despite the influence of the Department of Justice, we have the advantage that all the facts are in our favor. We will continue to fight this ruthless attack.