Ramey, Lawyers Sanctioned for ‘Truly Extraordinary’ Conduct (1)

William “Bill” P. Ramey III, a prolific Texas intellectual property law attorney, was sanctioned by a California federal judge for practicing in the Golden State without a license and without the court’s permission, marking Ramey’s third sanction in a week.

Ramey, Jeff Kubiak, and Susan Kalra, all of Ramey LLP, engaged in bad faith litigation and violated their obligations as attorneys, Magistrate Judge Peter Kang ruled Wednesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The team of attorneys must self-report to bar associations for potential discipline and pay a combined $64,000 in fines, including Ramey’s own $45,264 penalty.

During a Sept. 19 show cause hearing in front of snickering observers, the law firm’s attorneys stumbled through their excuses for making “errors” and not clearly understanding court rules while handling their client Koji IP LLC’s patent case against Renesas Electronics America Inc. Kang didn’t buy their argument in court and rejected it in the order.

“In this Court’s many decades of experience in the law (particularly patent litigation), the facts here are truly extraordinary, evincing a pattern of conduct spanning many cases, over many years, specific to this one law firm and its namesake attorney,” Kang wrote.

Any “out-of-state lawyer who ghostwrites” filings is not immune from “supervision by a California court,” wrote Kang, who pointed to Ramey and Kubiak, from Texas, as the primary authors of the Koji complaint submitted by Kalra. The judge also admonished Kalra for “repeatedly and knowingly” aiding and abetting Ramey and Kubiak in the case and other disputes.

Kang instructed the attorneys to self-report the sanctions order by April 26 to several court disciplinary committees, state and federal bars, and judges handling their clients’ cases in California. Those entities include the Northern District of California’s Standing Committee of Professional Conduct, the California and Texas state bars, the US Patent and Trademark Office, and the US District Court for the District of Colorado’s bar.

The attorneys must also report the order to additional bar agencies in which they are members, complete ethics courses, and share the order and educational material with all attorneys at their firm.

This is the third sanction order made this week involving Ramey. A New York federal judge ordered sanctions in a case against Alphabet Inc.'s Google for the lack of pre-suit investigation and a Texas federal judge granted BlackBerry Ltd.'s attorney’s fees for bad faith litigation. Both courts are considering their penalties.

Koji sued Renesas in May, asserting US Patent No. 10,790,703 against the company for the third time. Koji voluntarily dismissed the suit, just like the prior lawsuits, according to court records.

Renesas requested attorney’s fees, which led Kang to investigate Ramey LLP’s handling of the suit. The court will issue a separate order concerning Renesas’ attorneys’ fees and sanctions request later, according to the order.

Kang said in an August show cause order the court determined the law firm didn’t conduct a pre-filing investigation to determine whether Koji IP had the right to file a third lawsuit over the same allegations, and Ramey and Kubiak didn’t file motions for pro hac vice admission when filing the complaint.

Ramey told the judge in a September response filing the attorneys weren’t intentionally trying to break court and attorney conduct rules, but were simply trying to help their lead attorney, California-based Kalra, while she was dealing with personal issues.

But Kang rejected Ramey’s explanation, stating it would be considered the unauthorized practice of law if the firm continues to handle California cases and avoids putting the Texas-based attorneys’ names on filings because it would hide counsel’s identity.

Kang said it’s not a secret to those practicing patent litigation that the Ramey law firm files a high volume of lawsuits for patent assertion entities and settles for low value amounts.

The law firm filed about 260 patent infringement suits in 2024 across the country, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis.

Ramey told Bloomberg Law in an interview in November his practice is like a “crusade” against corporations willing to stop patent plaintiffs, and called it “a badge of honor.” The attorney refused to say whether he is being, or ever has been, investigated by the State Bar of Texas.

Renesas, Ramey, Kalra and Kubiak didn’t immediately respond to requests for 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, order entered 3/26/25