Showing 3 of 3 news articles
Each week, RPX publishes the latest news on patent litigation and market trends. Never miss a headline. Get them delivered right to your inbox.
Court Grants Ramey LLP’s Request to Withdraw (with an Asterisk)
In Case You Missed It
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.
March 10, 2024
Questionable Certificates, Though Amended, Beget More Questions
In Case You Missed It
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.
February 17, 2024
The AiPi-Ramey Relationship Implodes
Patent Market, Patent Watch
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.
January 28, 2024