One last case filed by Lauri Valjakka, in the Northern District of California, remains open, with briefing having completed on defendant Netflix’s motion asking for an order to show cause why former plaintiff counsel Ramey LLP (and its principal William P. Ramey III) should not be sanctioned. Netflix contends that Ramey LLP violated the case’s protective order by sharing sensitive Netflix-produced information with AiPi, LLC, an entity formerly operating in the background of multiple patent litigation campaigns, sometimes as funder, sometimes as “de facto lead counsel”. AiPi filed a motion to quash a related subpoena in the Eastern District of Virginia, where earlier this year that court ordered “full and complete discovery”, including forensic discovery, from AiPi. An assertion of privilege preventing the production of certain materials was brushed away this past week; per the court, “it is clear that AiPi was not representing Valjakka as his attorney throughout most of their relationship” such that “the parties’ designated third-party neutral forensic expert” PricewaterhouseCoopers has been ordered to “produce all documents currently sequestered based on Mr. Valjakka’s improper claim of privilege”.  

Eastern District of Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema held a hearing this past Friday on a motion for civil contempt against AiPi LLC filed by Netflix. The hearing occurred in a proceeding brought by AiPi to quash a third-party subpoena served in connection with ongoing litigation between Lauri Valjakka and Netflix in the Northern District of California over a claim under the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA). In its motion for civil contempt, Netflix represents that AiPi personnel have committed perjury, that AiPi has been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, that the scheme operating in the background of multiple litigation campaigns has had William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP acting as a “ventriloquists’ doll” mouthing AiPi’s legal work to nationwide courts, and that all of this amounts to the AiPi perpetuation of fraud on federal courts on a “grand scale”.

On January 13, 2025, Western District of Texas Judge Xavier Rodriguez shifted just over $60K in attorney fees in a case that CTD Networks LLC filed against Alphabet (Google) back in October 2022. In a separate order, Judge Rodriguez denied a Microsoft motion seeking a $100K sanction (under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11) against Ramey LLP for its representation of CTD. Per the court’s 1927 analysis, “Taking unreasonable positions is not necessarily vexatious behavior”, and the evidence that Ramey LLP disregarded its client’s instructions—a “certainly troubling” declaration from CTD’s (and AiPi’s) Eric Morehouse, balanced against arguably privileged emails that Ramey attached to his papers—could not overcome the applicable, clear-and-convincing burden of proof. Ramey LLP had sought its own sanctions, but Judge Rodriguez ruled that the firm, as former litigation counsel, lacks standing to pursue them.

Microsoft recently renewed a motion to sanction Ramey LLP, as prior counsel for plaintiff CTD Networks LLC in a case between them. In support of its renewed motion, Microsoft submitted a declaration from “in house counsel” for CTD Eric D. Morehouse, attesting that CTD “does not have sufficient assets to satisfy Microsoft’s full fee request” and that CTD never approved the filing of a “Second Amended Complaint”, which CTD instructed Ramey LLP to dismiss. Now, Ramey LLP has responded (for the third time)—by filing a Rule 11 version of a motion for sanctions against Microsoft, two of its attorneys, and Morehouse for submitting that Morehouse declaration to the court. In support, Ramey LLP has publicly filed, among other things: (1) heavily redacted documents that reveal the settlement amounts paid by other defendants in this campaign; (2) presumably privileged emails from Morehouse colleagues while Ramey LLP still represented CTD; (3) draft claim charts still bearing the attorney-client privilege designation; and (4) early 2024 communications in which Morehouse attempts (unsuccessfully) to secure the signature of William P. Ramey III on a draft declaration intended to allay Morehouse’s investor concerns triggered by earlier Ramey statements.

Northern District of California District Judge Jon S. Tigar has granted a request by Ramey LLP to withdraw from its representation of Lauri Valjakka in his case against Netflix, a request that Netflix opposed. The court found good cause to authorize withdrawal through the nonpayment of fees to Ramey LLP by Valjakka and by third party AiPi, LLC, fees now owed that Ramey LLP claims comes to more than $1.1M. Although permitted to withdraw, Ramey LLP may not have seen the last of this case.

Frequent patent plaintiff-side counsel Ramey LLP has taken in recent years to filing a certificate of interested parties in connection with cases regardless of whether local rules in the district in which they are filed require one. The recent implosion of Ramey LLP’s relationship with AiPi, prompting widespread Ramey LLP withdrawals and the repeated appearance of Whitestone Law, raised the question, would those certificates of interested parties, however questionable their accuracy, be ignored or amended. At least one Ramey-to-Whitestone campaign provides an answer.

This past November, District of Colorado Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter ordered William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP to show cause in writing “why he should not be referred to the Court’s Committee on Conduct for his neglectful behavior in this case, including his failure to appear at a scheduling conference and his failure to serve any discovery”. Ramey’s response was to address five specific pieces of information “relevant to the issues of whether Mr. Ramey and his firm are spread too thin to provide competent representation”. Ramey filed his response—the contents of which have pulled back the curtain on a broad patent monetization operation, including arguably improper legal work, numerous inaccurate certificates of interested parties, and third-party litigation funding lurking in the shadows.