Background
Infineon Technologies, a leading semiconductor manufacturer, filed a Section 337 complaint at the International Trade Commission alleging that Innoscience Technology Co. imported gallium nitride (GaN) power semiconductor devices that infringed two Infineon patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481 and U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755. GaN semiconductors are a rapidly growing class of power electronics used in data centers, electric vehicle chargers, consumer electronics, and solar inverters — markets where Infineon and Innoscience directly compete.
In December 2025, an Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination finding a violation of Section 337 with respect to the ‘481 patent but no violation with respect to the ‘755 patent. Both sides sought Commission review. After the complaint was filed, Innoscience had redesigned its products, and whether those redesigned devices also infringed was a central disputed issue.
The Commission’s Holding
The Full Commission issued a nuanced final determination that both sides claimed as a victory. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s infringement finding with respect to Innoscience’s legacy products under two claims of the ‘481 patent, but made several modifications:
Invalidity: The Commission reversed the ALJ in part on invalidity, finding that claims 1-3 and 6 of the ‘481 patent are invalid as obvious. This left only two claims of the ‘481 patent standing — a significant reduction in the scope of Infineon’s patent protection.
Redesigned products: The Commission determined that Innoscience’s current GaN power devices — the products actually being manufactured and sold today — do not infringe either patent. The redesigned products fall outside the scope of the ‘481 patent’s remaining valid claims.
Relief: The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders, but these apply only to Innoscience’s discontinued legacy products. Because Innoscience no longer manufactures or sells the covered devices, the practical impact is minimal. Innoscience confirmed that its current U.S. shipments are uninterrupted.
Key Takeaways
- Product redesigns remain a powerful strategy for avoiding ITC exclusion orders. As in the BISSELL v. ITC Federal Circuit decision from the same week, Innoscience successfully redesigned its products to avoid infringement, rendering the ITC’s exclusion order largely toothless against current commerce.
- The Commission is willing to narrow patent scope on invalidity grounds. By invalidating four of six asserted claims as obvious, the Commission significantly reduced the scope of Infineon’s GaN patent portfolio — even as it found infringement on the remaining claims.
- Both sides claiming victory is a common ITC outcome. Infineon secured formal exclusion and cease-and-desist orders (important for its patent enforcement narrative), while Innoscience ensured its current product lineup is cleared to continue entering the U.S. market.
- GaN semiconductor IP disputes are heating up. As GaN technology displaces silicon in power electronics, expect more patent litigation between established semiconductor firms and Chinese competitors manufacturing GaN devices.
Why It Matters
This case sits at the intersection of semiconductor trade policy and patent law. Innoscience, a major Chinese GaN manufacturer, now has regulatory clearance to continue importing its current power devices into the United States — a significant commercial outcome given the geopolitical tensions around semiconductor supply chains. For the broader GaN industry, the decision signals that the ITC will carefully distinguish between legacy and redesigned products, giving respondents a viable path to maintain market access even after an initial infringement finding.
The case also underscores an emerging pattern in ITC litigation: patent holders secure formal exclusion orders that make headlines, while respondents redesign their way out of practical impact. Companies facing Section 337 complaints should evaluate early whether a targeted product redesign can limit the commercial fallout of an adverse ruling.