In a Florida federal court, patent licensing executive Leigh M. Rothschild and Baker Botts LLP intellectual property attorney Rachael Lamkin have each filed motions for summary judgment in a defamation lawsuit that has garnered attention within the legal community.
The dispute originated from comments Lamkin made in a news article concerning a patent infringement case involving Starbucks Corp. Rothschild, along with his company Analytical Technologies LLC, alleges that Lamkin’s statements were defamatory and have caused reputational harm. In response, Lamkin contends that her remarks were truthful and made in the context of her professional duties as Starbucks’ legal representative.
In March 2025, Rothschild sought a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Lamkin’s defense was insufficient and failed to address the core issues of the case. He also moved to dismiss Lamkin’s counterclaim of abuse of process, asserting that it lacked merit. ([publiclawlibrary.org](https://publiclawlibrary.org/patent-owner-seeks-court-resolution-in-defamation-case-against-attorney-alleges-ineffective-denial-of-claims/?utm_source=openai))
Lamkin, in turn, filed a motion to dismiss Rothschild’s defamation claims, stating that the allegations were baseless and that her comments did not constitute defamation. She emphasized that her statements were made in the course of defending her client against what she described as meritless patent claims. ([publiclawlibrary.org](https://publiclawlibrary.org/patent-litigator-dismisses-defamation-claims-by-florida-inventor-in-legal-battle-with-starbucks/?utm_source=openai))
In September 2025, Rothschild opposed Lamkin’s motion to trim the lawsuit, arguing that the motion was premature as discovery had not been completed. He maintained that sufficient evidence existed to support his defamation claims and that the case should proceed to trial. ([law360.com](https://www.law360.com/florida/articles/2383482/patent-company-fights-baker-botts-atty-s-bid-to-trim-suit?utm_source=openai))
As the case progressed, the court addressed concerns regarding the conduct of depositions. In October 2025, a magistrate judge suggested appointing a special master to oversee depositions to ensure appropriate decorum and civility, highlighting the contentious nature of the proceedings. ([law360.co.uk](https://www.law360.co.uk/legalindustry/articles/2403298?utm_source=openai))
Both parties have now filed competing motions for summary judgment, each seeking to resolve the case in their favor without proceeding to trial. The court’s decisions on these motions will be pivotal in determining the outcome of this high-profile defamation lawsuit, which continues to be closely monitored by legal professionals and industry observers.