Prolific Patent Attorney Fumbles California Sanctions Hearing

As Texas patent attorney Bill Ramey fumbled through his notes and laptop, searching for an explanation over why he’d tried cases in California for seven years without a license, attorneys and even members of the local clerk’s office whispered and stifled laughter.

Ramey and two of his colleagues were grilled by Magistrate Judge Peter Kang, who demanded an explanation for why Ramey masterminded more than 50 patent cases in California since 2017 without a license to practice there, while often using his colleague, Susan Kalra, as a local proxy.

“Do you know of any California ethics opinions that allow you to do that?” Kang asked during an 80 minute hearing on Thursday. “I don’t see how you can stumble into accidentally practicing law.”

Ramey frequently fidgeted with his glasses while attempting to explain procedural “errors” made in filing and litigating the disputes. He often failed to recall case citations he says he researched ahead of the hearing, while Kalra acknowledged they’d used this model for “years.”

“Those are errors in the process we had at the firm,” Ramey said.

Attendees scoffed at Ramey’s rebuttals, often shaking their head or pinching their fingers over the bridge of their nose.

“This is embarrassing,” whispered one attendee of the hearing to another.

Ramey and his colleagues landed in front of Judge Kang when their client Koji IP LLC sued Renesas Electronics America Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in May. The dispute is Ramey LLP’s latest complaint for Koji filed in California behind a litigation model that promoted Kalra as the named counsel, while Ramey and attorney Jeffrey Kubiak prepared arguments from Houston.

While the trio has seemingly adopted this strategy across federal courts in the Northern and Central Districts — litigating without the court’s permission — Kang on Aug. 29 issued a show cause order demanding an explanation for their practice and reasons why they shouldn’t be disciplined. Along with the threat of monetary sanctions, Kang is also considering referring them to ethics committees across California, Texas, Colorado, and the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Ramey didn’t attend an Aug. 22 hearing over attorneys’ fees when Renesas raised concerns about Ramey and Kubiak practicing in California without permission, according to Kang’s order. Their motion has dismantled Ramey’s model, and may yield a comeuppance for the attorney who admitted avoiding temporary admission filings to to reduce costs.

Multiple Sanctions

Ramey is fighting multiple sanctions bids advanced by their cases’ defendants in federal courts, including BlackBerry Corp., Volkswagen Group of America Inc., and Microsoft Corp.

But the three attorneys struggled giving direct answers for what laws allow Ramey and Kubiak to operate under Kalra’s California bar license, and what allowed Koji to file the same allegations against Renesas three times. The attorneys said they didn’t realize they were violating court and federal rules of practice.

“We weren’t trying to misrepresent anything,” Ramey said later noting they were only trying to support Kalra during a personal matter.

Kang said during the hearing an order will come later.

Ramey, Kubiak and Kalra all declined to comment after the hearing.

As the hearing came to an end, Kang asked Ramey to explain how the remainder of the Renesas Electronics case would play out, and if Kalra would remain the face of the lawsuit in San Francisco while Ramey and Kubiak craft Koji’s arguments from Houston.

Ramey confirmed that’s how they intend to complete this dispute, but with Kalra empowered with final approval before any arguments are made to the court.

Kang pushed back, again demanding ethics opinions endorsing this model while wondering whether Kalra should avoid sanctions if Ramey and Kubiak face punishment.

Ramey acknowledged he’s not aware of any opinion supporting his litigation by proxy model.

“We’ve changed our practices. We made a mistake. We accept that fact and it won’t happen again,” he said.

Kang had one last suggestion before adjourning: ''You’re always free to take the California bar exam.”

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, show cause hearing 9/19/24.