Stephen M. Lobbin

I'll research this attorney before drafting. Let me run some searches.

Let me dig into the two tracked cases and his PTAB/firm history.

Professional Summary — Stephen M. Lobbin

Focus areas. Lobbin's patent practice centers on software, computer architecture, communications, and security technologies — publicly aggregated practice-area data skews heavily toward software/security (approx. 88 matters), computer architecture and software (53), and communications (51), with smaller chemical and biotech dockets. His BS in electrical engineering (Univ. of Virginia) is consistent with the technical mix. Representative subject matter spans e-commerce and web transaction processing (the Lockwood "automated business/financial transaction" family), voice/NLP and AI-driven interfaces, broadcast and media distribution, consumer electronics and displays, and lighting. He also maintains a substantial trademark prosecution and portfolio practice and works as a mediator.

Side preference. The two tracked appearances are split 1 plaintiff / 1 defendant, but that small sample understates a strongly plaintiff-side docket. Searchable filings show him repeatedly as counsel for NPE/patent-monetization plaintiffs — e.g., Landmark Technology, Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, Rothschild Patent Imaging, SOTAT, Speech Transcription, Qualitative Data Solutions, Control Synch Systems, Ad Innovations, and realZOOM — usually as the filing/signing attorney. The defense-side entry is VB Assets, LLC v. SoundHound AI, Inc., where he appears for defendant SoundHound via Quinn Emanuel. I could not independently verify the case details or his role in that matter beyond the tracked listing.

Firm context. He is the principal of SML Avvocati P.C. (San Diego / La Jolla, CA). Prior patent-litigation affiliations include One LLP, The Eclipse Group LLP, Foundation Law Group LLP, and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP. The Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan appearance is listed as Of Counsel and appears tied to the SoundHound defense engagement; that designation is drawn from tracked data and I did not find independent public confirmation of a standing firm role.

Tracked cases, PTAB, and other results. Landmark Technology, LLC v. Launchpad, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 3:17-cv-00892) asserted U.S. Pat. 6,289,319 against an e-commerce site operator; the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice roughly six weeks after filing, and I note that the public docket reflects different counsel of record, so the tracked lead-counsel attribution is not corroborated by the docket I could view. On the PTAB side he does appear in IPR proceedings, generally for patent owners rather than petitioners — he and Joshua Osborn of SML Avvocati substituted in as lead/backup counsel for Patent Owner Caravan Canopy International in IPR2020-01026 (2022), and he is listed for Patent Owner in IPR2015-01420 (U.S. Pat. 8,454,204) — but aggregated data rates his PTAB activity as modest rather than high-volume. His broader record also includes adverse fee and sanctions rulings in LCS Group, LLC v. Shire LLC, 383 F. Supp. 3d 274 (S.D. Ill. 2019) ($133,803.75 Rule 11 award jointly against him and his then-firm), plus documented Rule 37 sanctions in Nutrition Distribution LLC v. PEP Research, LLC and Daimler AG v. A-Z Wheels, LLC, and a fee-dispute deposition fight in Eclipse Group LLP v. Target Corp. Those matters are part of the public litigation record and should be weighed in any conflict or engagement review.

Bar / education. Admitted in California in 1995 (Cal. Bar No. 181195); J.D., UCLA School of Law (1995); B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Virginia (1991). Mediation certification, Pepperdine Straus Institute (2018).

Sourcing note: bar number, admission year, education, and firm history are drawn from Super Lawyers, mediator-directory, and court-filing profiles; PTAB appearances from USPTO filings; sanctions history from published opinions. The two tracked appearances above are the authoritative case list; additional matters referenced are from public dockets and are illustrative, not exhaustive.