Judge Rejects Career-Ending Claim From Sanctioned Texas Attorney

A San Francisco federal judge told patent attorney Bill Ramey and his team they’d failed to show any evidence that his sanctions over their legal tactics caused harm warranting reversal.

Ramey, his Texas colleague Jeff Kubiak, and California counterpart Susan Kalra appeared before Magistrate Judge Peter Kang Wednesday arguing that his sanctions threatened their legal careers. Kang responded by naming a litany of lawsuits Ramey LLP filed since he’d penalized the trio in March for litigating in California unlicensed and without court permission.

“The effects of the sanctions has not stopped you from practicing law,” said Kang during the 45-minute hearing at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Kang directed most of his questions at Ramey, who argued on the trio’s behalf.

Kang ruled in March the attorneys handled Koji IP LLC’s case against Renesas Electronics America Inc. in bad faith while violating conduct rules. Ramey and Kubiak, who’ve never been licensed to practice in California but filed dozens of cases in the state, relied on Kalra to submit court filings, the judge said.

The judge ordered the attorneys to self-report the sanctions to bar associations and disciplinary committees, pay a combined $64,000 in fines, and complete attorney continuing legal education courses.

Judges have admonished Ramey, the owner of his namesake firm, during his 25 years of practicing law for filing frivolous lawsuits and motions, missing court appearances, and violating court and attorney conduct rules. Defendants including Alphabet Inc.'s Google, Volkswagen AG, and Blackberry Ltd. have sought sanctions against him and his clients.

Judges have granted, fully or partially, at least 21 requests for sanctions and attorneys’ fees against Ramey, his firm, and/or clients. This case may credibly threaten Ramey’s career since it requires him to report his practices to bar associations and federal court disciplinary committees where he litigates most frequently.

The attorney told Bloomberg Law in a November interview that his firm’s practice is a “crusade” against giant companies who want to harm patent plaintiffs.

The attorneys argued Kang lacked authority to issue the sanctions. They filed multiple objections with the court and later appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the US Supreme Court, arguing the sanctions would be “career ending.”

Ramey on Wednesday insisted the judge’s decision resulted in lost clients, adverse media attention, and the removal of editorial articles.

Kalra, 61, a California attorney working for Ramey’s client Koji IP LLC, said she was forced to resign by her Sacramento-based firm because of the order. In a subsequent job interview, attorneys asked about the order and eventually refused to hire her.

Kalra, who owes the court about $8,000 for her role in the legal scheme, asked Kang to consider a payment plan since she’s unemployed. Kang told the attorneys he will take motions to quash sanctions and attorneys’ fees under consideration and issue a ruling in the future.

Star Chamber

Before wrapping up the hearing, Judge Kang adopted a sharper tone, demanding Ramey, Kalra, and Kubiak to explain why they referred to the prior sanctions hearing as litigation conducted as a “star chamber,” in a April reply filing.

The judge explained the attorneys have an ethical duty concerning the rhetoric they use to express a court’s actions. Star chamber proceedings, conducted in England during the Medieval age, prosecuted people for their religious beliefs and were not in open court, Kang said.

“Yes or no, is it your position that this court operates as a star chamber?” Kang yelled.

Ramey explained he used the term “like” a star chamber and wasn’t actually stating the court was one. Kubiak and Kalra told the judge they didn’t believe the September hearing was a star chamber.

The Federal Circuit denied a pair of the attorneys’ emergency appeals, and left a third unanswered.

Ramey, Kalra, Kubiak, and counsel for Renesas declined to comment.

Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP represents Renesas.

The case is Koji IP LLC v. Renesas Electronics America Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:24-cv-03089, hearing held 4/23/25.