Karnataka High Court Allows Wacom To Collect Evidence From Bengaluru-Based Company For US Patent Suit
Riya Rathore
7 March 2026 8:22 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed Japanese technology firm Wacom Company Limited to collect documents and testimony from Bengaluru-based semiconductor manufacturer Cirel Systems Pvt Ltd.
The evidence will be used in a patent infringement lawsuit pending in the United States between Wacom and Chinese company Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co Ltd, in which the Indian firm is not a party.
Justice P. Sree Sudha, who heard the matter, held that India's declaration under Article 23 of the Hague Evidence Convention does not bar execution of the letters rogatory because the documents sought were specifically identified.
The petition sought the appointment of a local commissioner to collect documents, technical evidence and testimony from the Bengaluru-based company as directed by Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Wacom also prayed for the establishment of a “Confidentiality Club” and for the proceedings to be conducted in camera to protect sensitive trade secrets.
This legal action was initiated because the evidence, relating to integrated circuits supplied by Cirel Systems for use in allegedly infringing stylus products, is considered material for an ongoing U.S. patent infringement suit between Wacom and Shenzhen Qianfenyi Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd., and is not accessible within the jurisdiction of the United States.
The Japanese company argued that Cirel Systems and its employees possess information and documents critical to proving infringement that are not accessible within the jurisdiction of the United States. Wacom pleaded that it was not seeking damages or injunctive relief against the Bengaluru firm, but only the discovery of evidence necessary for the effective adjudication of the Texas proceedings.
In response, Cirel Systems pleaded that it is a non-party to the U.S. litigation and should not be compelled to part with highly sensitive and confidential trade secrets. The Bengaluru company contended that the request was an unauthorized attempt at "pre-trial discovery," which is prohibited under India's specific declaration to Article 23 of the Hague Convention.
However, the Court held that India's declaration under Article 23 of the Hague Evidence Convention does not bar execution of letters rogatory where the documents sought are specifically identified.
The court observed that Wacom had identified the documents sought in detail in the Letters Rogatory, including a list of specific documents and questions, and therefore the objection under Article 23 could not be sustained.
Consequently, the High Court concluded that any potential prejudice to the Bengaluru firm could be mitigated by strict procedural safeguards.
The Court ordered the establishment of a "Confidentiality Club" and directed that all evidence collection be conducted in camera. The Bench appointed an advocate as Local Commissioner to record the testimony and gather the documents, which are to be kept in a sealed cover by the Registrar General before being forwarded to the United States District Court.
For Wacom: Advocate Chintan Chinnappa .M
For Cirel Systems: Advocate Anind Thomas