Lamkin IP Defense

I'll research this firm and its tracked case before drafting.

Let me verify a few specifics — the firm's structure/size, the Garmin case outcome, and any PTAB activity.

Lamkin IP Defense — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Lamkin IP Defense was a Bay Area intellectual property boutique founded in 2016 by Rachael D. Lamkin, who was its sole named attorney and lead counsel in every appearance tracked here. Filings and correspondence place the firm at several San Francisco and Sausalito addresses over time (100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 and 655 Montgomery St., 7th Floor, San Francisco; One Harbor Drive, Sausalito). It is not a BigLaw firm or a multi-partner IP shop; the public record is consistent with a solo patent-defense practice rather than a Chambers- or AmLaw-ranked firm, and no such ranking for the firm itself could be verified. Reuters and Baker Botts reported that Lamkin ran the practice as a solo office from 2016 until June 2023, when she joined Baker Botts' IP department in San Francisco and brought nearly all of her clients with her — indicating the firm's independent practice effectively ended at that point.

IP litigation specialty and side preference. The firm's work was concentrated in defense-side patent litigation, typically representing operating companies sued by patent monetization entities. That orientation is reflected directly in the tracked data: 0 plaintiff-side appearances versus 2 defendant-side appearances, both as lead counsel. Technically, the tracked matters involve consumer electronics, mobile-device and navigation/GPS technology — Lamkin's docket also spans software, consumer products, and mechanical/electrical art. Her published biography describes a defense-focused practice built on shifting "asymmetries" in NPE litigation (cost, information, damages), with complementary ITC, Court of International Trade, and Federal Circuit experience. Beyond patents, the firm also handled trademark and copyright matters, including pro bono representation of artists.

Notable tracked case and public outcomes. The only case in the list is Context Directions LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. (C.D. Cal., No. 2:22-cv-01360), in which Context Directions — a Jeffrey M. Gross-controlled NPE — asserted U.S. Patents 9,807,564 and 10,142,791 (mobile-device context detection and hierarchical sensor management) against Garmin. Lamkin appeared for Garmin, filed its answer and counterclaims in April 2022, and the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice roughly three months after filing. Note that the two tracked appearances are the same case, not two separate matters. Related publicly reported results from the same era include Philips North America LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. (C.D. Cal.), where Lamkin filed Garmin's summary judgment motion on non-infringement, ineligibility, and invalidity and the court ultimately ruled for Garmin; Rothschild Digital Confirmation LLC v. CompanyCam (D. Del.), an early § 101 win with a fee award; Kindred Studio v. Eclipse IP (C.D. Cal.), a Rule 12(c) win with fees in which the NPE agreed never to file suit in California again; and summary judgment wins for Nuance in Synkloud and Eloqui Voice Systems. Reuters reported in 2023 that Lamkin defeated two Garmin patent cases together valued at roughly $1 billion — a figure sourced to Lamkin herself, not independently confirmed.

PTAB / IPR practice. There is no evidence of a standalone IPR/PGR filing practice at Lamkin IP Defense; public records do not support a filing volume. The closest verifiable PTAB link is defensive: in the Philips/Garmin litigation, a docket filing notes Garmin sought to extend summary judgment and trial deadlines pending the PTAB's final written decision in an instituted IPR on the asserted '233 patent, and the firm's invalidity contentions appear in PTAB-related docket materials. Treat that as litigation-driven IPR coordination rather than an established PTAB practice.

Key personnel. The practice was essentially one lawyer: Rachael D. Lamkin (firm founder and sole lead counsel of record). No second or third partner at the firm is reliably documented. Lamkin was individually recognized on the Daily Journal's "Top Intellectual Property Lawyers" list for 2025 (as a Baker Botts partner), sits on the Practicing Law Institute patent litigation faculty, and co-founded the Lead Counsel Summit. Her later, higher-profile public matter — a Texas UFTA counterclaim strategy for Starbucks against Leigh M. Rothschild, which prompted a personal defamation suit against her in S.D. Fla. — postdates the firm's wind-down and is attributable to her Baker Botts practice, not to Lamkin IP Defense.

Caveats: firm-size, revenue, and ranking figures are not publicly reportable for an entity of this size; the "~$1 billion" case-value figure and the ~125-case count originate from the attorney's own statements as reported by Reuters and the Daily Journal.