Netflix is asking a federal court in California to award nearly $3 million in legal fees, arguing that a patent infringement lawsuit brought against the company should never have been filed because the plaintiff allegedly did not own the patent in question.
The latest development stems from a long-running legal dispute involving Finnish businessman Lauri Valjakka and his former attorney, William Ramey, with Netflix accusing both of knowingly pursuing invalid claims.
According to publicly available court filings, Netflix made its arguments during a recent virtual hearing before U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, claiming the case qualifies as an “exceptional” patent dispute that warrants shifting its legal costs to the opposing parties.
Netflix says patent ownership issue existed before lawsuit
Netflix contends that Valjakka knew before filing the lawsuit in September 2021 that he did not actually own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 8,495,167, one of the patents asserted against the streaming company.
Representing Netflix, attorney Sarah Piepmeier argued that the litigation was “frivolous from its inception” and pursued despite clear ownership problems. She also claimed that William Ramey became aware of those issues after taking over the case later in 2021 but continued representing Valjakka.
Netflix further alleged that the lawsuit was part of a broader patent campaign targeting multiple technology companies and pointed to previous court findings involving alleged fraudulent transfers of settlement proceeds. The company argues these actions demonstrate a broader pattern of bad faith litigation.
Plaintiff’s former attorney rejects Netflix’s allegations
Ramey disputed Netflix’s request, telling the court that the ownership issue remains contested in Finnish courts and should not be treated as a settled matter. He argued that when he assumed representation, he was not informed that the claims were fundamentally defective and said previous counsel indicated the ownership dispute could be addressed during litigation.
He also maintained that Netflix was attempting to stretch federal fee-shifting laws to improperly hold him personally liable for his former client’s actions.
The underlying lawsuit originally began in Texas before being transferred to the Northern District of California. In 2023, Judge Tigar dismissed one of the asserted patents under the Alice v. CLS Bank patent eligibility standard. The remaining claim was dismissed in 2024 after the court concluded that the patent had been transferred years earlier, leaving Valjakka without ownership rights to enforce it.
Netflix later filed its fee motion, seeking to recover approximately $3 million in litigation costs from Valjakka and Ramey jointly. Judge Tigar has not yet ruled on the request.
