Patent Lawyer Facing Sanctions for Sharing Secret Netflix Data

A federal judge in Oakland signaled he’ll likely force a prolific patent attorney and his firm to pay fees as a sanction for violating a protective order by sharing Netflix Inc.'s source code and financial information with a litigation funder.

Judge Jon S. Tigar also said he’s inclined to make attorney Bill Ramey turn over communications he had with four individuals at AiPi LLC about the sensitive information, during a Thursday hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Netflix claims the information Ramey divulged—what the company called the “crown jewels of its business"—could be used against it by AiPi, which bankrolled Finnish inventor Lauri Valjakka’s 2022 lawsuit against the company.

“Attorneys’ fees as a sanction are going to be appropriate, and I think attorneys’ fees are going to be substantial,” Tigar said.

The streamer sought penalties against Ramey after learning in December he’d shared information disclosed during the discovery process and and marked “attorneys eyes only” with individuals at AiPi. Netflix’s attorney, Sarah Piepmeier of Perkins Coie, said at the hearing that individuals at AiPi had access to her client’s information before it even knew the litigation funder was involved in the case.

AiPi is “still to this day looking for new lawsuits to underwrite and they have confidential information about Netflix, financials, technical information and source code, that could influence their decisions to underwrite new cases or that could inspire them to bring new cases,” she told the judge. “That’s a really big deal.”

Ramey said the protective order governing the case allowed him to share sensitive documents with “affiliates” and four patent lawyers at AiPi fit that definition.

“I don’t think there’s been any harm shown here,” Ramey added, because the AiPi lawyers had assured him they hadn’t used any of the Netflix materials in a manner barred by the protective order.

Tigar was skeptical on both fronts.

“I don’t think having people affiliated with a litigation funder looking at Netflix’s source code is a situation of no harm,” he said.

Tigar said he would separately consider whether to refer the lawyer to the California State Bar or another disciplinary body.

Ramey LLP, a prolific filer of patent infringement lawsuits, and its clients have received admonitions and sanctions across the country for their litigation conduct, including this year by judges in the Northern District of California. Tigar in April denied Ramey’s pro hac vice admission application in a case for a different client, CyboEnergy Inc., ruling the Texas attorney regularly practices law in California without a state bar license.

Tigar in January ruled for Netflix by dismissing Valjakka’s patent claims, saying Valjakka didn’t own the patent he was asserting when he filed his lawsuit. The entertainment company counter-sued and continues to assert that Valjakka fraudulently hid money earned from patent suits against other tech companies that ended with quick settlements.

Ramey argued in a March brief opposing the sanctions and discovery motion that he’s being persecuted by “Big Tech” in an attempt to gain leverage in their dispute with AiPi and its executives. He said in an accompanying declaration that Netflix’s lawyer “attempted all trickery to get dirt” on AiPi and its founder, Eric Morehouse.

Ramey indicated he could still reach out to the AiPi attorneys—Morehouse, Erik Lund, Ken Sheets, and Weir King—to get them to agree to be bound by the protective order.

“I think that horse has left the barn,” Tigar said.

Ramey is representing himself and his law firm. Perkins Coie and Baker Botts represent Netflix.

The case is Valjakka v. Netflix Inc., N.D. Cal., 4:22-cv-1490, hearing on mot. to show cause 5/8/25.