IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CIVIL PETITION NO.426 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

WACOM COMPANY LIMITED, 510-1 TOYONODAI 2-CHOME, OTONE-MACHI KITA SAITAMA DISTRICT, SAITAMA 349-1148, JAPAN EMAIL: chintan@spectrumlegal.in dhruv@anandandanand.com Tel:+91 96864 55514 REPRESENTED BY PDA HOLDER MR. NRIPENDRA KASHYAP …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA .M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

CIREL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED

303, FIRST FLOOR, A BLOCK, 60 FEET ROAD, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 037, INDIA TEL: +91 80 4052 6200 +91-8040526200 Email: ic@cirelsystems.com bizserv@cirelsystems.com …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIND THOMAS., ADVOCATE)

THIS CP IS FILED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULES 19 TO 22 READ WITH SECTION 78 OF THE CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER APPOINTING A LD. LOCAL COMMISSIONER, PREFERABLY A SENIOR PERSON HAVING GOOD KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELDS OF TECHNOLOGY AND CIRCUITRY SUCH AS A RETIRED PROFESSIONAL OR A DISTRICT JUDGE FOR COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS (AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE 11 OF THE LETTERS ROGATORY) AS WELL AS FOR OBTAINING AND RECORDING THE TESTIMONY (AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE 10 OF THE LETTERS ROGATORY) FROM THE RESPONDENT AND ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES WHOSE DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN CLAUSE 9 OF THE LETTERS ROGATORY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

30.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

CAV ORDER

This petition is filed by Wacom Company Limited, Japan, Represented by power of attorney holder Mr. Nripendra Kashyap against Cirel Systems Private Limited situated at Kundalahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India under Order XXVI Rules 19 to 22 R/w Section 78 of CPC, 1908, seeking relief as directed in Civil Action No.2:24-CV-00702-JRG (between Wacom Co. Ltd. Vs. Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd.) by the Hon'ble United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

2. It is stated that the Petitioner is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Tokyo, Japan, having its registered in Japan. It is a global technology firm specializing in interactive pen tablets, pen displays, digital styli, and signature solutions. Mr. Nripendra Kashyap is the authorised signatory of the Petitioner vide a Power of Attorney dated 24.09.2025 issued by the Petitioner.

3. That the Respondent-*Shenzen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Maxeye"). The Plaintiff alleged before the Hon'ble US District Court that Maxeye makes, offers to sell and sells branded and non-branded infringing stylus products, including at least under the names Maxeye, Penoval, and Metapen, for use, sale, distribution, and exportation to and importation into the United States. The Plaintiff's claim is that the production, sale, and distribution of these impugned products infringe on their rights in the Patents-in-Suit. The Plaintiff asserts the details under para 4(i) to 4(vi) in the petition.

4. Maxeye asserted before the Hon'ble US District Court that they are not liable due to non-infringement, invalidity of the Patents-in-suit, that the Plaintiff's damages are statutorily limited, that such claims are barred by prosecution history estoppel, disclaimer, ensnarement, principles of equity, license,

*Corrected vide Court order dated 12.02.2026.

exhaustion, lack of damages, or the stature of limitations.

There is no basis for injunctive relief.

5. The Plaintiff represents that the US case include components comprising hardware and software that are provided by the Respondent in the present petition to Maxeye. It is submitted that Maxeye has purchased Active Stylus Integrated Circuits including Cirel CSAA2001 and CSAA2002 from the Respondent Cirel for use in the impugned stylus products. The Petitioners believe that the Respondent Company and its employees possess information and documents relating to Maxeye's impugned p