Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd. v. Wacom Co Ltd.

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd. against US Patent 9,933,866, owned by Wacom Co Ltd. Shenzhen Qianfenyi, also known by its brand MAXEYE, is a Chinese company specializing in the research, development, and production of intelligent touch writing systems and active styluses, and is a significant global producer in this field. Wacom Co Ltd. is a Japanese global leader in manufacturing graphics tablets, pen displays, digital styli, and related digital ink solutions, also providing OEM solutions to other manufacturers. In this IPR, Shenzhen Qianfenyi, as the Petitioner, sought to challenge the validity of Wacom's patent, while Wacom, as the Patent Owner, defended it.

The IPR is directly linked to a parallel patent infringement lawsuit filed by Wacom against Shenzhen Qianfenyi in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:24-cv-00702, initiated on August 28, 2024. In that district court action, Wacom alleges that Shenzhen Qianfenyi's active stylus products, including those compliant with the USI Stylus and Device Specification, infringe several of Wacom's patents, including US Patent 9,933,866. U.S. Patent 9,933,866 is titled "Active stylus with high voltage," indicating its technical focus on active stylus technology involving high voltage operation. The district court case is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a well-known judge in a prominent patent litigation venue.

The procedural posture of the IPR before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is notable because the PTAB "Not Instituted" the review on procedural grounds, and the case was terminated on January 9, 2026. This means the PTAB did not reach the merits of Shenzhen Qianfenyi's patentability challenge. Such procedural denials often arise from the PTAB's discretionary denial policies, which consider factors like parallel district court litigation, timing, and "settled expectations" as outlined in recent USPTO guidance on IPR and PGR proceedings. The non-institution of the IPR means that Wacom's patent 9,933,866 remains unchallenged in this venue, leaving its validity for determination in the ongoing district court infringement suit. The case is notable for highlighting intense international intellectual property disputes in the digital input device market, particularly concerning active stylus technology, and for illustrating the impact of the PTAB's evolving discretionary institution standards on patent litigation strategy.

The patent litigation involves a district court case where Wacom Co. Ltd. alleges infringement by Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (also known as MAXEYE), and a parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Shenzhen Qianfenyi against Wacom's patent.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

I. District Court Patent Infringement Litigation: Wacom Co. Ltd. v. Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex., Case No. 2:24-cv-00702)

This lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of multiple patents, including US Patent 9,933,866.

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:
  • 2024-08-28: Wacom Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (MAXEYE). Wacom alleged that the import and sale of Maxeye's active stylus products infringed seven of Wacom's active electrostatic pen-related patents, including US Patent 9,933,866, and sought damages and an injunction.
  • 2025-06-03: Wacom Co., Ltd. filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
  • 2025-06-02: Wacom Co., Ltd. filed an Unopposed Motion to Substitute Attorney (lead).
  • 2025-06-04: Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. filed a Notice of Designation of Attorney in Charge.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
  • 2026-01-28: The Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of disputed terms in the asserted patents, including US Patent 9,933,866.
  • 2026-02-03: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap signed a Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.
  • 2026-02-04: The Claim Construction Memorandum and Order was filed, detailing the court's construction of the disputed patent terms.

II. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd. v. Wacom Co Ltd. (IPR2025-01495)

Shenzhen Qianfenyi initiated an Inter Partes Review petition against US Patent 9,933,866.

• Filing:
  • 2025-08-29: Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging US Patent 9,933,866 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Outcome:
  • 2026-01-09: The PTAB terminated the IPR, issuing a decision not to institute the review on procedural grounds.

III. Effect of IPR on Litigation:

The IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01495) was "Not Instituted - Procedural" and terminated on January 9, 2026. This means the PTAB did not proceed to a full merits review of the patentability of US Patent 9,933,866. Consequently, the IPR had no direct impact on the ongoing district court litigation in terms of cancelling claims or providing a stay based on a PTAB decision on the merits. The district court case, Wacom Co. Ltd. v. Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., continues to proceed without a PTAB ruling on the validity of the '866 patent.

Here is the counsel of record representing Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd. (Petitioner) in IPR2025-01495:

The provided search results contain information primarily about the Patent Owner's (Wacom Co Ltd.) counsel in the IPR and counsel for both parties in a related district court litigation. After a careful review of the search results, the specific counsel representing Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd. as the Petitioner in IPR2025-01495 is not explicitly identified in the provided snippets. The document that lists counsel in IPR2025-01495 (a Patent Owner's Mandatory Notice Information) clearly states that the listed attorneys (Wayne M. Helge, James T. Wilson, and Richard C. Lin from Bunsow De Mory LLP) represent Wacom Co. Ltd., the Patent Owner.

Therefore, based on the provided information, the counsel for the plaintiff (Petitioner, Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd.) in IPR2025-01495 could not be identified. Filings related to IPRs are typically publicly accessible via the PTAB's electronic filing system, which would contain the petition detailing the petitioner's counsel. However, direct access to the full IPR docket was not available in the search results.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd. v. Wacom Co Ltd. IPR2025-01495 counsel for Wacom", "Wacom Co Ltd. patent litigation counsel", "Wayne M. Helge patent litigation experience", "James T. Wilson patent litigation experience", "Richard C. Lin patent litigation experience Bunsow De Mory LLP"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in the IPR case IPR2025-01495.
Based on the previous section, it is established that Wacom Co Ltd. is the Patent Owner (Defendant in the IPR context, as they are defending their patent).
The previous section already identified Wayne M. Helge, James T. Wilson, and Richard C. Lin from Bunsow De Mory LLP as representing Wacom Co. Ltd., the Patent Owner, in IPR2025-01495.

My task is to provide:

• Name and role (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel, in-house).
• Firm and office location.
• A one-line note on relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases when known.

I already have the names and the firm. I need to:

1. Confirm their roles (likely lead counsel, but confirm if possible).
2. Find the office location of Bunsow De Mory LLP.
3. Find relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases for each attorney.

Let's break down the search for each attorney's experience.

First, confirm the firm's office location.
Second, search for each attorney's experience.Here is the counsel of record representing Wacom Co Ltd. (Patent Owner/Defendant) in IPR2025-01495:

• Wayne M. Helge

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Helge is a founding partner with extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the electrical, software, and mechanical arts, and has represented clients in numerous IPR proceedings and district court cases.

• James T. Wilson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Wilson is a partner at Bunsow De Mory, focusing his practice on patent litigation in federal courts and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, often in the areas of computer hardware and software.

• Richard C. Lin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Lin is an attorney at Bunsow De Mory with experience in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases and IPRs, across various technology sectors.