Infineon v. Innoscience — ITC Orders Import Ban on GaN Semiconductor Devices for Patent Infringement

Background

Infineon Technologies, the Munich-based semiconductor giant, filed a complaint at the ITC in July 2024 accusing China-based Innoscience of infringing patents related to gallium nitride (GaN) power semiconductor technology. GaN is a wide-bandgap compound semiconductor that enables transistors to switch faster, handle higher voltages, and generate less heat than traditional silicon — making it critical for next-generation power electronics in AI data centers, electric vehicles, and renewable energy systems.

Infineon originally asserted four patents but voluntarily withdrew two before the final determination. The remaining patents at issue were U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481 (covering a four-terminal packaging solution for GaN transistors with a Kelvin source-sense contact) and U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755 (an electrode design). The ‘481 patent’s key innovation is a dedicated fourth lead that connects directly to the transistor’s source terminal, enabling gate drivers to accurately measure source voltage with lower parasitic inductance — which in turn allows higher switching frequencies and reduced power losses.

In December 2025, ALJ Bryan F. Moore found a violation of Section 337 with respect to the ‘481 patent (claims 1-4, 6, and 17 infringed, none invalid) and no violation for the ‘755 patent.

The Court’s Holding

The full Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding of infringement but partially modified the invalidity analysis. The Commission found claims 1-3 and 6 of the ‘481 patent invalid as obvious — overturning the ALJ on that point — but sustained the validity of claims 4 and 17. The net result: Innoscience was found to have violated Section 337 by importing products that infringe valid claims 4 and 17 of the ‘481 patent.

The Commission issued a limited exclusion order banning importation of infringing Innoscience GaN semiconductor devices and products containing them, along with cease and desist orders barring U.S. sales of infringing products. The orders affect over 80 product SKUs across the INN650D, INN700D, INN700DA, INN700TH, INN700TJ, INN700TK, and ISG product families. The remedies are subject to a standard 60-day Presidential review period, with formal legal effect expected in early July 2026.

Innoscience has publicly stated that its current commercial GaN products have been redesigned to fall outside the scope of the infringed claims and that U.S. shipments will continue uninterrupted. Innoscience is also pursuing invalidation of the remaining valid claims through PTAB proceedings.

Key Takeaways

• GaN patent enforcement is heating up. As GaN technology becomes essential for AI infrastructure and clean energy, disputes over foundational GaN patents are intensifying. Infineon holds approximately 450 GaN patent families and has signaled it will aggressively protect them — this case is also being litigated in parallel in Germany and the N.D. California.
• ITC exclusion orders can reshape semiconductor supply chains. Even though Innoscience claims its current products are redesigned to avoid infringement, the exclusion order creates ongoing compliance burdens and reputational risk that can shift purchasing decisions among major OEMs building AI and EV hardware.
• Design-arounds don’t always moot ITC cases. The Commission issued the exclusion order despite Innoscience’s redesign claims, because the original infringing products remain subject to the ban. Whether the redesigned products actually clear the claims will likely be tested in enforcement proceedings.

Why It Matters

This is one of the first major ITC investigations at the intersection of semiconductor patent rights and AI infrastructure. GaN power semiconductors are a key enabling technology for AI data center power supplies, where energy efficiency is becoming a critical bottleneck. As the AI hardware buildout accelerates, control over GaN intellectual property gives established players like Infineon significant leverage over emerging Chinese competitors.

The case also illustrates the continuing effectiveness of ITC Section 337 investigations as a tool for technology companies to block imports of allegedly infringing products. For companies sourcing GaN components for AI, EV, or renewable energy products, the exclusion order introduces supply chain considerations that extend beyond simple technical specifications — patent clearance is now a procurement factor for advanced semiconductors.