Entity type: The name in our database, "Luis Robles," is an individual natural person, not a company. No corporate entity, product line, or headquarters is identified in the case data, and no company of that name could be verified as a party to these suits.
Company overview: Not applicable. There is no verified corporate profile — no legal entity name, incorporation date, ownership status, employee count, or revenue to report. Several unrelated individuals share the name "Luis Robles," including a former professional soccer goalkeeper and a San Francisco–based venture investor (co-founder/CEO of Viento Ventures; co-founder of Diamanti). Public sources do not establish that either is the defendant here, and I cannot verify which, if any, individual this is. No website, filing, or press release ties any such person to these dockets.
Products / services / operations: None identified. As an individual defendant, this party has no disclosed product or service offerings in the case data. Conversely, the plaintiff — Justin Arie Roeloffs, described in the docket as a California resident operating as a sole proprietorship, "Roeloffs Solutions" — is likewise not a verified manufacturer or service provider; nothing in the record establishes an operating business for either side.
Patent-litigation posture: Passive defendant only. The structured data show 0 cases as plaintiff and 2 as defendant. That profile is typical of a party accused of infringement, not of a non-practicing entity or an active two-way litigant. The two tracked entries — Justin Arie Roeloffs d/b/a Roeloffs Solutions v. Luis Robles, docketed as 1:26-at-03575 and later as 1:26-cv-08030 — appear to be the same patent action at successive docket stages (unassigned intake number, then assigned case number) rather than two distinct suits. Both sit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division (Judge Jennifer L. Thurston; referred to Magistrate Judge Erin Guy Castillo), a California venue, not a traditional patent-plaintiff hotspot such as the Eastern or Western District of Texas. The plaintiff is represented by Theresa H. Rava of Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC (Seattle).
Notable cases / context: The only tracked matters are the two above, filed in 2026 and plead as property-rights/patent claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The patents asserted, the accused technology, and any damages theories are not disclosed in the available data and are not characterized here.