CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Deye ESS Technology USA et al.

I'll research this case across the sources you mentioned.

I have solid primary sourcing. Now let me verify the patent family, the plaintiff's broader campaign, and any IPR linkage.

Let me verify the IPR linkage and the Deye corporate/parent context.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Plaintiff CyboEnergy, Inc. is a small Delaware corporation headquartered in Sacramento County, California (Compl., Dkt. 1 ¶ 7, CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Deye ESS Tech. USA, No. 2:25-cv-07964 (C.D. Cal.)). Founded in 2011, it is not a classic shell NPE: it designs and sells the CyboInverter, an award‑winning solar mini‑inverter/microinverter line (Frost & Sullivan 2013 Product Differentiation and 2017 Technology Innovation awards; Solar Power World 2020 Top Solar Inverter Products), and states it holds roughly 13 U.S. patents (Compl. ¶¶ 8–11). At the same time, CyboEnergy has become a serial patent asserter — Unified Patents' PATROLL program expressly describes it as "an NPE" whose patents have been asserted against Northern Electric Power Technology, Home Depot, Duracell, Yotta Energy, Deye ESS Technology, and others — so it is best characterized as a practicing entity with an active licensing/enforcement program rather than a pure PAE. Defendants are Deye ESS Technology USA, Inc., the U.S. arm of the Deye group, and Ningbo Deye Inverter Technology Co., Ltd., the manufacturing affiliate of Deye Co., Ltd. (Shanghai‑listed, 605117), one of the world's largest inverter and energy‑storage manufacturers; Chinese trade press reports Deye ranks second globally in energy‑storage inverter shipments and that the company had not publicly disclosed the suit (赶碳号/钛媒体, Aug. 29, 2025).

Accused products and patents. The complaint accuses six Deye "SUN Series" microinverters — SUN600G3, SUN800G3, SUN1000G3, SUN1300G3, SUN1600G3 and SUN2000G3 — grid‑tied, dual‑MPPT, rapid‑shutdown‑capable units (Compl. ¶ 12). Two patents are asserted: U.S. 8,786,133 ("Smart and Scalable Power Inverters," issued July 22, 2014; asserted claims 1–24), which claims a modular architecture of plural power inverters whose AC output ports daisy‑chain into the next inverter's AC input port, each containing a DC‑DC boost converter, DC‑AC inverter, load‑interface circuit, MFA microcontroller, powerline modem, line‑sensing circuit and solid‑state switch; and U.S. 9,331,488 ("Enclosure and Message System of Smart and Scalable Power Inverters," issued May 3, 2016; asserted claims 1–17), which covers the housing/UI side — multiple DC input channels with per‑channel MPPT feeding a single inversion stage, plus a "message system" indicating the status of the inverter and of each individual input channel, with grid‑sync and PLC communication. Both are single‑U.S. filings with no Chinese counterpart per the Chinese coverage; the '488's asserted term runs to roughly 2034 and the '133's to roughly 2032. The Deye complaint pleads induced and contributory infringement for the '133 and a mix of direct, induced and contributory infringement for the '488 (Compl. ¶¶ 16–21), relying on claim charts in Exhibits B and D that were referenced but the complaint is notably thin on the accused products' specific internal architecture.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed August 22, 2025 in the Central District of California, Western Division (Los Angeles), No. 2:25-cv-07964. The case was initially assigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder but was returned and randomly reassigned on September 3, 2025 to Judge Anne Hwang under C.D. Cal. General Order 23‑05, the district's patent‑case assignment program, with Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue designated (Dkt. 10; Dkt. 12 standing order) — C.D. Cal. is a leading patent venue, and G.O. 23‑05 concentrates patent cases before a limited set of experienced judges. Only Deye ESS Technology USA was served (personally, Oct. 17, 2025; Dkt. 14); the answer deadline was extended by stipulation twice, from Nov. 7 to Dec. 8, 2025, then to Jan. 7, 2026 (Dkts. 15–16). On December 8, 2025 Judge Hwang issued an in‑chambers Order to Show Cause re: dismissal for lack of prosecution (Dkt. 17), and four days later CyboEnergy filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1) without prejudice (Dkt. 18), with the Court closing the case and vacating all hearings the same day (Dkt. 19; AO‑120 close, Dkt. 20) — i.e., this was a short‑lived placeholder suit terminated on the courthouse's own motion rather than by any merits ruling or judgment. The case's significance lies in pattern and context: it is the latest step in a multi‑year campaign over the '133/'488/'489 inverter family that has already produced a pleading‑stage loss (direct infringement of the '133 dismissed in CyboEnergy v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, No. WA‑22‑cv‑01136‑KC, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023), and again in CyboEnergy v. Hoymiles Power Elecs. USA, No. 2:23‑cv‑00311 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2024)), a $300K settlement plus ~RMB 5.52M in legal fees from APsystems/Altenergy, a confidential settlement with Hoymiles that terminated IPR2024‑01106 (Hoymiles USA v. CyboEnergy, '133 claims 15–24, dismissed pre‑institution on Oct. 28, 2024 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b)), and ongoing invalidity pressure on both asserted patents — Unified Patents opened $2,000 PATROLL prior‑art contests on the '133 and '488 in September 2026. Against that backdrop, the quiet 41(a)(1) withdrawal here reads as a tactical step (likely license/settlement outreach or a forum re‑set), not a resolution on the merits.

Sourcing notes: the docket entries, judge assignment, service and dismissal dates are confirmed by the PACER Monitor and CourtListener dockets linked above; the patent technical sketches derive from the complaint and the published patent texts; the APsystems settlement figure, the "NPE" label, the Deye parent's global ranking, and the 2025 Yotta Energy suit come from Unified Patents, the Chinese trade‑press analysis, and Patexia related‑case listings respectively — I could not independently confirm a second CyboEnergy v. NEP filing reportedly docketed in November 2025, and the precise set of patents asserted against Yotta should be treated as unverified.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me research PTAB proceedings and related litigation context.

Let me confirm PTAB activity and any further developments after the dismissal.

CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Deye ESS Technology USA et al., No. 2:25-cv-07964 (C.D. Cal.) — Litigation Chronology and Outcome

Bottom line up front: This was a short-lived, pleadings-stage case. It never produced an answer, counterclaim, substantive motion, Markman ruling, discovery, trial, or appeal. The only "result" is a without-prejudice voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1), entered five days after the court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. No PTAB proceeding on either asserted patent was pending during the case's lifetime.

---

1. The parties, patents, and accused products (for grounding)

• Plaintiff: CyboEnergy, Inc. (Texas-based solar mini-inverter maker; also characterized as an NPE/assertion entity by Unified Patents, which has run PATROLL prior-art bounty contests against its portfolio).
• Defendants: Deye ESS Technology USA (U.S. affiliate) and Ningbo Deye Inverter Technology Co., Ltd. (Chinese parent/affiliate of the Deye group).
• Asserted patents:
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133, "Smart and Scalable Power Inverters" (issued 2014-07-22).
  • U.S. Patent No. 9,331,488, "Enclosure and Message System of Smart and Scalable Power Inverters" (issued 2016-05-03).
• Accused products: Deye's SUN-series microinverters — models SUN600G3, SUN800G3, SUN1000G3, SUN1300G3, SUN1600G3, and SUN2000G3 (Compl. ¶ 12).
• Counsel of record (plaintiff side only): Jennifer L. Ishimoto, Banie & Ishimoto LLP. The Rule 7.1/Interested Parties certificate also identifies Ramey LLP as associated plaintiff-side firm (Dkt. 5, 2025-08-25). No defense counsel appearance appears on the docket.
• Presiding judge: Judge Anne Hwang (case reassigned to her on 2025-09-03; Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue designated). Note: some third-party docket aggregators (e.g., Justia's snapshot) list the judges in inverted order; the reassignment order (Dkt. 10) and the termination minute order (Dkt. 19, "by Judge Anne Hwang") confirm Judge Hwang as the presiding district judge.

---

2. Filing and initial pleadings

2025-08-22 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Filing fee $405. The complaint asserted two counts:

• Count 1 ('133 patent): Indirect infringement only — induced infringement under § 271(b) and contributory infringement under § 271(c) of claims 1–24, with a claim chart at Exhibit B. Paragraph 17 pleads knowledge of the '133 patent "from at least the filing date of lawsuit" — i.e., no pre-suit knowledge allegation (a recurring defect that had defeated CyboEnergy's pleadings in related cases; see § 8 below).
• Count 2 ('488 patent): Infringement of claims 1–17 / method claim 16, with a claim chart at Exhibit D.

The complaint also pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), alleging both defendants have a regular and established place of business in the district (Compl. ¶¶ 6–7).

2025-08-22 (Dkt. 2–4): Civil cover sheet; summons request; AO 120 patent-filing report.

2025-08-25 (Dkt. 5): Certificate of Interested Parties (CyboEnergy; Deye ESS USA; Ningbo Deye; Ramey LLP; Banie & Ishimoto LLP).

2025-08-28 (Dkt. 6–9): Notice of assignment to Judge Christina A. Snyder; ADR program notice; magistrate consent notice; and a Notice of Deficiencies rejecting the summons request because the summons caption did not match the complaint caption verbatim (Dkt. 9).

2025-09-03 (Dkt. 10): Order returning the case for random reassignment under General Order 23-05; case reassigned from Judge Snyder to Judge Anne Hwang; new initials "2:25-cv-07964 AH (PDx)."

2025-09-04 & 09-08 (Dkt. 11–12): Corrected summons request; Judge Hwang's Standing Order on case management (which expressly "controls this case and differs in some respects from the Local Rules").

2025-09-11 (Dkt. 13): 21-day summonses issued as to both defendants.

Answer / counterclaims: None were ever filed by either defendant. No motion to dismiss, answer, or counterclaim appears anywhere in the 20-entry docket. The case ended with the pleadings still unjoined.

---

3. Service and the extension sequence

2025-10-17: Deye ESS Technology USA served (by personal service). Answer due 2025-11-07. Proof of service filed 2025-11-07 (Dkt. 14).

2025-11-07 (Dkt. 15): First stipulation extending Deye ESS USA's answer deadline to 2025-12-08.

2025-12-05 (Dkt. 16): Second stipulation extending the answer deadline to 2026-01-07 — filed by CyboEnergy, framed as a stipulation but filed without any defense counsel signature block appearing on the docket.

Critical gap: The docket reflects no return of service and no executed summons as to Ningbo Deye Inverter Technology Co., Ltd., the Chinese manufacturer. That unserved foreign defendant is the most probable trigger for what happened next.

---

4. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

There were no motions to dismiss, to transfer, to stay pending IPR, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, or any other substantive motion. The docket's only orders are the standing order, the reassignment order, the summons issuance, and the OSC/termination orders.

5. Claim construction (Markman) — not reached

The case never reached a scheduling order, a joint claim construction statement, or a Markman hearing. No claim construction ruling exists in this case. (For the only judicial construction relevant to CyboEnergy's family, the '133 patent claim 15/19 limitations "plurality of power inverters," "daisy chain," and "DC power source" were construed/analyzed in the related cases discussed in § 8.)

6. Discovery milestones — none

No Rule 26(f) conference, no scheduling order, no initial disclosures, no infringement or invalidity contentions, and no discovery of any kind occurred. The complaint's infringement allegations were expressly "preliminary and… subject to change" (Compl. ¶ 18), but plaintiff never got to the contentions phase.

7. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions — none

No trial date was ever set; no verdict; no JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion. No appeal was taken.

---

8. Termination — the OSC and the Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal

2025-12-08 (Dkt. 17): Judge Hwang issued, in chambers, an "ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION." The order is two pages and, per the docket text, sets "details and deadlines."

2025-12-12 (Dkt. 18): CyboEnergy filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) — expressly stated to be "Without Prejudice."

2025-12-12 (Dkt. 19): Minute-in-chambers order by Judge Hwang: "In light of the Notice of voluntary dismissal [18], the Court hereby closes this case. All pending hearings and motions are now taken off calendar and vacated. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.)"

2025-12-12 (Dkt. 20): AO 120 Report on the Determination of an Action (closing).

Why the OSC? The record strongly suggests the court's concern was the combination of (a) the still-unserved foreign defendant Ningbo Deye (roughly four months after filing and nearly three months after the U.S. affiliate was served), and (b) the fact that no defendant had appeared or answered in a case still technically open. Plaintiff's response was to cut the case rather than cure. The substantive reason CyboEnergy walked away is not stated in any public filing — no settlement agreement, license, or covenant not to sue has been made public in this docket. That is an important limit on what can be asserted here.

Effect of the dismissal: A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal without prejudice ordinarily leaves CyboEnergy free to refile — but note that a second voluntary dismissal would operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), and the prior Rule 12(b)(6) rulings in the related cases are available to Deye as persuasive authority if the case is refiled.

---

9. Parallel PTAB proceedings — none pending, but important institutional history

No IPR or PGR was pending on the '133 or '488 patent during this case's August–December 2025 window, and none is identified as ever having been filed against the '488 patent. The relevant PTAB history on the '133 patent is:

In IPR2024-01106, the Board (APJs Easthom, Ullagaddi, Cass) granted a joint motion to terminate after the parties represented that they had "settled their dispute regarding the '133 Patent, including this proceeding and Patent Owner's assertion of the '133 Patent in the related district court litigation against Petitioner," and treated the license/settlement agreement as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Petitioner's counsel was K&L Gates LLP; Patent Owner's counsel was DLA Piper LLP.

Effect on this litigation: none directly — there was nothing to stay. But the pattern is strategically meaningful: every IPR ever filed against the '133 patent had been bought off pre-institution, meaning the patent has never been through an instituted PTAB trial and its validity has never been tested by the Board. Conversely, Unified Patents launched PATROLL prior-art bounty contests on 2026-09-14 seeking art against claim 16 of the '488 patent and claim 14 of the '489 patent, explicitly noting the '488 patent "had been asserted against Northern Electric Power Technology, Home Depot, Duracell, Yotta Energy, and Deye Ess Technology." That tells you the '488 patent remained an active assertion target — and un-IPR'd — well after this case was dismissed. (Those contests ran 2026-09-14 through 2026-10-17, i.e., after today's date in this exercise; I flag the source date.)

---

10. Related litigation context that explains this case's shape (and its quiet death)

CyboEnergy has run a serial assertion campaign over this three-patent family ('133, '488, '489) against microinverter and storage competitors, including Altenergy Power System USA, Hoymiles Power Electronics, Northern Electric Power Technology (NEP), Sensata, Aptos Solar, Home Depot, Duracell Power Center, Yotta Energy, Generac Power Systems, and Deye. The throughline matters for assessing Deye:

• CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, Inc., No. WA-22-CV-1136-KC, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023) — direct infringement claim on '133 claim 15 dismissed: CyboEnergy accused single inverters, but claim 15 requires a plurality of inverters "connected in a daisy chain" plus connected DC power sources; a single accused inverter plus a user manual instructing customers how to assemble a system is not § 271(a) infringement.
• CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Hoymiles Power Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00311-JRG (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2024) (Dkt. 25) — direct infringement of '133 claims 15 and 19 dismissed, along with pre-suit indirect and willful infringement, with leave to amend; the court relied on Altenergy.
• CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Northern Electric Power Tech., Inc., No. 23-cv-06121-JST (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2024) — direct infringement dismissed (leave to amend) and breach-of-settlement claim dismissed with prejudice.

Strategic read: CyboEnergy appears to have absorbed those losses and, in the Deye complaint, pleaded only indirect infringement on the '133 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 19) rather than direct infringement, and pleaded knowledge only "from at least the filing date of lawsuit" (Compl. ¶ 17), which is the classic work-around for Global-Tech/Commil pre-suit-knowledge problems. The same decade-long obstacle — that these patents claim multi-inverter systems and methods, while defendants sell individual inverters — remains unresolved by any judgment in any of these cases.

Nature of the disposition: The dismissal was not a settlement announced to the court, not a consent judgment, and not a merits ruling. CyboEnergy preserved its claims and its patents intact.

---

11. Present posture (as of 2026-09-29)

• Case terminated 2025-12-12; docket closed at 20 entries. No appeal was filed (the 30-day window for a notice of appeal from the dismissal expired in mid-January 2026, and there was no adverse judgment to appeal in any event).
• No re-filing of a Deye action is reflected in the sources reviewed as of this writing.
• No IPR on the '488 patent exists; no instituted IPR on the '133 patent exists. The '133 patent's prior IPRs were all settled away pre-institution, and Unified Patents' September 2026 bounty on the '488 patent's claim 16 is evidence that no IPR had been filed against it.
• The '133 and '488 patents remain live. A secondary (Chinese-language) source reports estimated expiration dates of ~2032-06-07 for the '133 patent and ~2034-12-17 for the '488 patent, based on their earliest effective filing dates of 2010-07-15 and 2012-06-29 respectively. I have not independently verified those expiration calculations against the USPTO patent term adjustment records and treat them as indicative only.

---

12. Source-quality caveats

1. Docket verification. The full docket (20 entries) was reviewed via PACER Monitor and CourtListener/RECAP mirrors; Justia's snapshot is stale (last retrieved 2025-09-11) and appears to invert the judge assignments. All docket-entry characterizations above are drawn from the PACER Monitor and CourtListener listings.
2. The complaint text (Compl. ¶¶ 12–20) was reviewed from the archived PDF at archive.org (gov.uscourts.cacd.984207.1.0.pdf) and CourtListener.
3. No public document explains why CyboEnergy dismissed. I found no settlement, license, or fee agreement associated with the dismissal. Any statement that a Deye settlement caused the dismissal would be unsupported speculation.
4. Defense counsel. No attorney appearance for either Deye defendant is reflected on the docket. Because the two extension stipulations were filed on the plaintiff's docket line with no defense signature shown, I cannot confirm defense-side participation in those stipulations.
5. Claims asserted against the '488 patent. The complaint asserts "claims 1–17" generally; the Chinese trade press summary and the related Duracell/Generac complaints identify method claim 16 as the usual focal claim of the '488 patent. I did not confirm the exact claim-by-claim scope of the Deye complaint's '488 count from the complaint PDF text itself.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel. Let me run several searches.

Let me pull the actual complaint signature block and check the docket for all counsel.

Let me examine the actual complaint PDF and full docket to see every attorney named.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CyboEnergy, Inc. — 2:25-cv-07964 (C.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: Only one attorney actually appeared and is counsel of record on the docket in this case — Jennifer L. Ishimoto of Banie & Ishimoto LLP (Palo Alto). A second firm, Ramey LLP (Houston), is named in the plaintiff's Rule 7.1 Certificate of Interested Parties, and Ramey's managing partner, William P. Ramey III, is the attorney who runs CyboEnergy's nationwide patent-enforcement campaign — but no Ramey attorney's CM/ECF signature or entry of appearance appears anywhere on the public docket in this case, and no pro hac vice application was ever filed before the case was dismissed. I could not verify from the retrievable RECAP copy whether Ramey attorneys were listed in the complaint's signature block with the firm's usual "pro hac vice anticipated" notation, so I flag that as unconfirmed.

Attorneys of record

Firm named but no attorney appearing

What the docket shows (grounding)

• Dkt. 1 – Complaint (8/22/2025), C.D. Cal.: RECAP docket text states "(Attorney Jennifer L Ishimoto added to party CyboEnergy, Inc.(pty:pla))(Ishimoto, Jennifer)" — i.e., ECF added only Ishimoto as counsel. Signature block on the filed PDF: "Jennifer Ishimoto (SBN 211845), Banie & Ishimoto LLP, 2100 Geng Road, Suite 210, Palo Alto, California 94303." Every subsequent filing carries her signature or none (Dkt. 11 summons request; Dkt. 14 proof of service; Dkt. 15 and 16 stipulations; Dkt. 18 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (FRCP 41(a)(1), without prejudice), 12/12/2025).
• Dkt. 5 – Certificate of Interested Parties (8/25/2025): identifies "CyboEnergy, Inc.; Deye ESS Technology USA; Ningbo Deye Inverter Technology Co., Ltd.; Ramey LLP and Banie & Ishimoto LLP." This is the only docket artifact naming Ramey in this case; it is a disclosure filing, not an appearance.
• Dkt. 17 – OSC re dismissal for lack of prosecution (12/5/2025); Dkt. 19 – minute order closing the case (12/12/2025); Dkt. 20 – AO 120 (CLOSE). The case terminated before any defendant answered or any Ramey appearance/PHV motion was made.

Caveats

1. No Ramey attorney is of record here. Counsel-of-record is Ishimoto alone. The Ramey LLP reference is a Rule 7.1 disclosure only; I found no PHV filing, no Notice of Appearance, and no Ramey-signed document on the public docket.
2. Signature-block contents unverified. Sources disagree on how the complaint face sheet/signature block reads — C.D. Cal. complaints filed by this plaintiff elsewhere include Ramey/Kalra/Kubiak names with "pro hac vice anticipated." I could not retrieve a page image confirming or excluding those names on this complaint, so do not treat the absence as certain.
3. Nothing is sealed in a way that would hide counsel; the case is simply a short, voluntarily dismissed one (service completed on the U.S. defendant 10/17/2025; the Chinese defendant appears never to have been served, prompting the OSC).
4. Firm/experience notes on Ishimoto are drawn from her repeated appearance on CyboEnergy complaints and a firm-domain business address; I did not find a verified list of Banie & Ishimoto's other partners, so I name none.

Sources: CourtListener RECAP docket 71182599; PACER Monitor case 59719037; Justia dockets (D. Del./C.D. Cal.); archive.org RECAP PDF gov.uscourts.cacd.984207.1.0.pdf (Complaint); RPX Insight ("Ramey's Pro Hac Vice Problems Metastasize," Apr. 27, 2025); Koji IP, LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 3:24-cv-03089-PHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2025), Dkt. 42 (sanctions order); Ramey LLP firm blog posts on CyboEnergy v. Yotta Energy and CyboEnergy v. Duracell.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

The docket shows no defense appearances. Let me verify with targeted searches, including any related CyboEnergy cases and Deye's typical counsel.

Let me check the full docket listing and the text of the stipulations, and look for any defense-side filings.

Bottom line

No attorney has appeared as counsel of record for either defendant in CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Deye ESS Technology USA et al., No. 2:25-cv-07964 (C.D. Cal.). There is no notice of appearance, no pro hac vice application, no answer, and no motion filed on behalf of Deye ESS Technology USA or Ningbo Deye Inverter Technology Co., Ltd. on the docket. The case was voluntarily dismissed on December 12, 2025 — before any defense-side appearance of record.

I want to be explicit about that rather than name names: I could not find any defense counsel, and I will not invent one.

What the docket actually shows

The full docket (20 entries, closed 12/12/2025) contains no defense filings. Every entry is attributable to plaintiff's counsel or the Clerk:

Sources: PACER Monitor docket sheet (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59719037/CyboEnergy,_Inc_v_DEYE_ESS_TECHNOLOGY_USA_et_al); CourtListener/RECAP docket 71182599 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71182599/cyboenergy-inc-v-deye-ess-technology-usa/); Justia docket (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2025cv07964/984207).

Two structural facts reinforce the conclusion:

• The only "Represented By" entry on the PACER Monitor docket is Jennifer L. Ishimoto, Banie & Ishimoto LLP — and she represents the plaintiff, not the defendants. (IPVerse's party table lists "–" for all three parties, i.e., no counsel captured for the Deye entities: https://ipverse.greyb.com/litigations/cyboenergy-inc-v-deye-ess-technology-usa--2-25-cv-07964.)
• Both stipulations were filed by Plaintiff's counsel, not by a defense firm, and both are the L.R. 8-3 "plaintiff agrees to such extension" form. That is the signature of a defendant that has not entered an appearance.

The one gray area — and why I won't fill it in

Docket entries 15 and 16 recite that "the Parties are discussing settlement of this matter and desire more time." That language means someone was engaged on Deye's side (likely outside/in-house counsel coordinating with plaintiff's counsel), but that person never entered an appearance and is not identified anywhere in the public record. The stipulation text I retrieved (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.984207/gov.uscourts.cacd.984207.15.0.pdf) shows only plaintiff's counsel signature block ("Attorneys for Plaintiff CyboEnergy, Inc."). Any defense-side negotiator is therefore off-docket and unnamed. I would flag this as an open item rather than attribute it to a firm.

Consistent with this, the OSC (entry 17) targeted the unserved Ningbo Deye entity — service was only effected on Deye ESS Technology USA — and plaintiff dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1) before the show-cause deadline, mooting any need for a defense appearance.

For context: plaintiff's counsel of record (not defendants)

Since the question asks for defense counsel, I'll list the plaintiff-side roster only to prevent confusion, since these names appear first in searches and are not defendant counsel:

• Jennifer L. Ishimoto (CA SBN 211845) — Banie & Ishimoto LLP, 2100 Geng Road, Suite 210, Palo Alto, CA 94303. Counsel of record; signed the complaint and all filings. (Cert. of Interested Parties, Dkt. 5, also identified Ramey LLP as plaintiff-side counsel.)
• Ramey LLP — Susan S.Q. Kalra (Redwood City, CA) and William P. Ramey, III (Houston, TX), appear as CyboEnergy counsel in the related CyboEnergy v. Northern Electric Power Technology matter (N.D. Cal. 3:21-cv-08534; 4:23-cv-06121). They did not file an appearance in Deye.

Notes for follow-up (with sourcing caveats)

• Confirm against live PACER. The RECAP/CourtListener and Justia snapshots are the best free sources, but Justia's copy was last retrieved 9/11/2025. Only a fresh PACER pull of the C.D. Cal. docket (2:25-cv-07964) can conclusively rule out a late-filed appearance before the 12/12/2025 dismissal. The PACER Monitor sheet shows no defense "Represented By" block as of its last update.
• No publicly identified defense team via firm press releases, Law360, or Reuters Legal. My searches for Deye/Ningbo Deye representation by major IP firms (Fish & Richardson, Sterne Kessler, Perkins Coie, Covington, etc.) returned nothing tying any firm to this case. That is an absence of evidence, not evidence of absence — Deye's U.S. IP counsel may exist but simply never appeared.
• Related CyboEnergy campaign for background (useful for identifying recurring defense-side shops): CyboEnergy has also sued Hoymiles, APsystems (Yingli/昱能), Yotta Energy (W.D. Tex.), and Northern Electric Power over these same patents ('133 and '488). Chinese trade press reports the Yotta action used the '488 patent and that the Hoymiles case settled pretrial. Defense counsel in those matters is not established here and should not be imputed to Deye.

Recommendation: if you need the actual Deye-side lawyers, the productive paths are (a) a live PACER docket pull to confirm no appearance, and (b) an off-docket inquiry — e.g., the settlement-negotiation trail reflected in Dkt. 15–16 — since the public record does not name them.