Patent Lawyer Must Get Court’s OK Before Filing New Suits (2)

A Texas federal judge ordered William P. Ramey to ask permission before filing new patent suits in one of the nation’s busiest patent venues, part of a sanctions order in a dispute the embattled patent attorney brought against Cisco Systems Inc.

In addition to obtaining “the advance permission” of a judge, Ramey must attach a copy of the sanctions order, made public in redacted form Thursday, with any patent-infringement complaint his firm files in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Alan Albright ruled.

The judge also ordered Ramey and his client MCom IP LLC to pay $72,500 in attorney’s fees for their conduct in the Cisco case. Ramey didn’t appear at half of the hearings in the dispute, allegations made in the case lacked merit, and he failed conduct a pre-suit investigation before filing claims, according to the order, which was originally filed under seal Dec. 16.

Albright noted Ramey’s litigation history filled with admonishments by federal courts across the country. His namesake firm, Ramey LLP, handled at least 25% of patent suits filed in 2024 in the Western District of Texas. Judges across the country have granted, fully or partially, more than 20 requests for sanctions and attorneys’ fees against the namesake attorney, his firm, and/or clients.

“Mr. Ramey continues the cycle of filing a patent case, offering a nuisance settlement, and eventually voluntarily dismissing the case when the burden shifts back to his client,” Albright said. “The Court finds that monetary sanctions and prior court orders have not stopped Mr. Ramey’s conduct.”

Ramey didn’t immediately respond to multiple requests for comment.

MCom notified the court on Dec. 17 that it appealed the order to the Federal Circuit.

A Cisco spokesperson said in an emailed statement the company is pleased with the decision and that the order validates its defense against the allegations and sets an “an important precedent” for the industry.

“This outcome reinforces the integrity of our legal system and enables us—and our industry peers—to continue delivering innovative products and solutions to customers worldwide,” the Cisco spokesperson said.

Albright dismissed the case in September 2023, after MCom, through Ramey, failed to appear at a hearing for Cisco’s motion to dismiss.

Cisco argued in an October 2023 motion for attorney fees and sanctions Ramey’s Houston law firm has a “file anything” strategy, which consists of filing complaints lacking merit and forcing companies, like Cisco, to deal with the costs of litigating. It said Ramey hasn’t learned from admonitions by the court or his clients repeatedly being told to pay the attorneys’ fees of the companies they sue after their cases are dismissed.

“These monetary sanctions are no good deterrent to Mr. Ramey and his band of merry lawyers at Ramey LLP, who take from Cisco and like defendants and give to themselves,” Cisco argued.

Damage done in the short time of the case “justifies” the sanction, Albright said, noting Ramey has filed more than 600 patent litigation suits since 2021 just in the Western District, “clogging the Court’s docket and wasting valuable resources.”

A Florida judge sanctioned MCom and its Florida counsel Victoria Brieant in March after a magistrate judge found it filed an infringement lawsuit against City National Bank of Florida even though the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidated the asserted patent months earlier, and that she worked with Ramey on the case even though he didn’t have permission to practice in the court. An appeal of that order is pending.

Winston & Strawn LLP represents Cisco.

The case is MCOM IP LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., W.D. Tex., No. 6:22-cv-00261, redacted sanctions order filed 12/18/25.