Ramey Argues Against Judge’s ‘Career Altering’ Sanctions (1)

Two Texas patent attorneys and their California-based colleague told a San Francisco federal judge he doesn’t have authority to sanction them for their conduct while handling their client’s lawsuit against Renesas Electronics America Inc.

Neither Koji IP LLC nor Renesas consented to Magistrate Judge Peter Kang’s oversight while the case was open, Koji’s attorneys William “Bill” P. Ramey III and Jeff Kubiak of Ramey LLP and attorney Susan Kalra argued in a motion filed Monday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The filing presents 12 objections to Kang’s order and was submitted by Kalra, whose role as local counsel for Ramey and Kubiak was denounced by the magistrate in his March 26 order.

The sanctions order will be “career-altering,” the attorneys said.

Koji consented to a magistrate judge handling the case on June 10 but voluntarily dismissed it two days later, before Renesas’ attorneys signed-off on Kang’s role on June 26, according to the docket.

Kang’s March sanctions order found the attorneys engaged in bad faith litigation and violated conduct rules while handling Koji’s May 2022 lawsuit. The judge ruled Ramey and Kubiak practiced in the Northern District of California without permission and Kalra helped them. The judge ordered the attorneys to self-report to bar associations for potential discipline and pay a combined $64,000 in fines.

The attorneys and their client notified the court on Tuesday that they filed an appeal against Kang’s sanctions and attorney’s fees with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The notice of appeal to Kang’s orders shouldn’t be misinterpreted as consent for further review by the district court, but rather a formality in their quest for a stay, the attorneys said in the filing.

The appeal to the Federal Circuit wasn’t available at the time of publication.

The order came after Kang questioned the attorneys during a September hearing about why Ramey handled more than 50 patent cases in California since 2017 without requesting pro hac vice admission.

The attorneys disagreed that Ramey and Kubiak engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that Kalra helped them. They had a partnership in which Kalra handled California state law matters, and Ramey and Kubiak gave “highly specialized advice” on patent litigation, according to the motion. Ramey and Kubiak are both registered patent attorneys with the US Patent and Trademark Office, according to court records.

The Sacramento Business Journal announced in February Kalra had joined Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP. Kalra resigned from a new job “following a series of communications with the firm’s counsel,” she said in Tuesday’s filing. Aaron Silva, Murphy Austin’s co-managing partner, confirmed Kalra’s departure from the firm, stating in an email to Bloomberg Law that it is not handling her IP clients’ cases.

Kalra’s signature also no longer lists Ramey LLP, according to court records. Kalra and Ramey didn’t immediately respond to requests on whether the attorney left the Texas law firm.

The trio also argued in the motion that the order led to an intellectual property media outlet censoring Ramey by removing the Texas attorney’s profile and editorials from its website.

Kang’s order noted the Texas law firm has a history of filing high-volume lawsuits and settles for low-value amounts. The firm filed about 260 patent infringement suits in 2024 across the country, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis.

Ramey told Bloomberg Law in a November interview it takes “thick skin” to represent plaintiffs in patent suits because defendants are going to attack.

“We’re very fortunate that we’re able to settle out for the clients earlier and be able to monetize IP,” Ramey said in the interview.

The attorneys made similar arguments about Kang’s authority in a motion, also filed Monday, concerning an attorneys’ fee order favoring Renesas. The judge held Koji and its counsel jointly liable for attorneys’ fees for an amount not yet decided by the court.

Counsel for Renesas didn’t immediately respond to a request 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, motion filed 4/7/25