Background
Gallium nitride (GaN) power semiconductors are a fast-growing technology enabling more efficient power conversion in electric vehicles, chargers, industrial equipment, and consumer electronics. Infineon Technologies, a German semiconductor giant, has invested heavily in GaN-on-silicon technology and holds approximately 450 GaN patent families. Innoscience (Suzhou) Technology Holding Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, competes in this market by manufacturing GaN-on-8-inch silicon wafers at scale.
In July 2024, Infineon filed a Section 337 complaint with the ITC, seeking to block Innoscience’s GaN products from entering the United States on grounds of patent infringement. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial determination finding infringement, which the full Commission reviewed. On May 7, 2026, the full Commission issued its Final Determination. The mandatory 60-day Presidential Review Period then ran until July 7, 2026, when — with no Presidential action — the remedial orders took effect.
The Commission’s Holding
The outcome was significantly narrower than Infineon had sought. Of the patents and claims at issue, the Commission found:
- U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481 (covering packaging design for GaN devices): Multiple claims found invalid as obvious (including claims 1–3 and 6). Only two claims of this patent were found valid and infringed — and only with respect to Innoscience’s legacy products that are no longer manufactured or sold.
- U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755 (covering electrode design): The Commission found that Innoscience’s current products do not infringe.
Based on the infringement of the two remaining valid claims of the ‘481 patent, the Commission issued a limited exclusion order barring importation of the infringing legacy products and a cease-and-desist order directed at Innoscience. Because the only products found to infringe are already discontinued, the practical trade effect of the orders is minimal: Innoscience’s current GaN product line may continue to be sold and imported in the United States.
In parallel litigation in Germany, Munich courts have issued injunctions against Innoscience on three separate Infineon patents and one utility model, and Innoscience faces damages liability in that market. Meanwhile, Innoscience has mounted its own offensive: Chinese courts have reportedly upheld a preliminary injunction against Infineon in Chinese proceedings, illustrating the global, multi-front nature of the GaN patent war.
Key Takeaways
- Section 337 limited to discontinued products. The ITC issued an exclusion order, but it covers only Innoscience’s legacy GaN parts — the products that matter commercially (current-generation GaN-on-8-inch devices) remain unaffected. Both sides claimed the ruling as a win.
- Most claims invalidated. The Commission invalidated claims 1–3 and 6 of the ‘481 patent as obvious, substantially reducing the scope of Infineon’s IP rights in this technology area.
- GaN patent wars go global. The same technology dispute is being litigated simultaneously in the U.S. (ITC), Germany (Munich District Court), and China. Courts in all three jurisdictions are reaching varying conclusions on overlapping patent claims, illustrating the challenge of coordinating multinational IP enforcement in emerging semiconductor technologies.
- Presidential Review Period matters. The 60-day Presidential Review Period, often treated as a formality, provides a window for executive intervention on national security or trade-policy grounds. In this case, no action was taken and the order stands.
Why It Matters
GaN power semiconductors are a strategic technology for electrification and energy efficiency, and this dispute sits at the intersection of semiconductor IP, U.S.–China trade friction, and the global clean energy transition. The outcome reflects an ITC that carefully scrutinized validity claims and refused to give Infineon a sweeping win: the market-relevant current products remain in play, and the patent scope was narrowed by invalidity findings.
For companies competing in the GaN market — including domestic and foreign manufacturers of chargers, EV power modules, and industrial power supplies — the ruling provides some comfort that the ITC’s remedies are calibrated to the actual scope of valid, infringed patent claims rather than serving as a blanket ban. The case also underscores that respondents in Section 337 proceedings have real tools to challenge patent validity and limit the scope of exclusion orders.