Background
Infineon Technologies AG — a German semiconductor giant — filed a Section 337 complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2024, alleging that Chinese GaN (gallium nitride) chipmaker Innoscience Technologies was importing power transistors and semiconductor devices that infringed Infineon’s patents. GaN power devices are increasingly in demand for electric vehicles, power adapters, and industrial applications because they are more efficient than conventional silicon-based transistors. Innoscience, based in Zhuhai, China, had rapidly grown into a leading independent GaN manufacturer.
The case involved two Infineon patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755 (electrode design in GaN devices) and U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481 (GaN power transistor/device technology). Infineon sought a general exclusion order barring all infringing Innoscience GaN products from the U.S. market, along with a cease and desist order.
The investigation was part of a worldwide patent war: Innoscience and Infineon have been litigating across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. Chinese courts have ruled against Infineon in separate patent disputes brought by Innoscience (the Supreme People’s Court upheld a RMB 10 million damages award in Innoscience’s favor in June 2026), while German courts have repeatedly ruled for Infineon (the Munich District Court found Innoscience infringed three Infineon patents across decisions in August 2025, June 2026, and July 2026).
The Commission’s Decision
The Commission issued a mixed final determination on May 7, 2026:
No violation on the ‘755 patent. The Commission found that none of Innoscience’s products infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755.
Limited violation on the ‘481 patent. Innoscience’s legacy high-voltage GaN products were found to infringe two claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481. However, the Commission found that Innoscience’s current and redesigned GaN products do not infringe the ‘481 patent — meaning the exclusion order is effectively limited to a line of products that Innoscience has already discontinued or redesigned around the patent.
Remedy: Limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders were issued covering only Innoscience’s legacy infringing products. Innoscience’s current generation of GaN power devices — the products actively sold in the U.S. market — may continue to be imported and sold. The 60-day Presidential Review Period expired on July 7, 2026 without presidential intervention, making the remedies final and enforceable.
Key Takeaways
- Design-arounds can blunt ITC relief. By redesigning its products before the Commission issued its final determination, Innoscience largely neutralized the practical impact of the exclusion order — the banned legacy products are already out of production while the current product line continues.
- The Presidential Review Period (60 days) is typically a formality, but it remains a window for policy intervention. The U.S. Trade Representative can recommend presidential disapproval of ITC exclusion orders on public interest grounds. In this case — as is typical — no action was taken.
- GaN semiconductor patents are being litigated globally and simultaneously. The Infineon/Innoscience dispute involves the U.S. ITC, U.S. district courts, German courts, and Chinese courts all hearing related patent claims — with contradictory results across jurisdictions. The Chinese courts found Innoscience’s patents infringed by Infineon; the U.S. and German courts have been more favorable to Infineon.
- Section 337 remains a powerful tool for U.S. patent holders against imported goods even when the exclusion order is limited in scope, because the investigation itself creates leverage for licensing discussions and signals enforcement intent.
Why It Matters
The GaN semiconductor market is projected to grow rapidly as EV adoption, data center power efficiency requirements, and consumer electronics drive demand for faster-switching, higher-efficiency power devices. The patent landscape for GaN technology is hotly contested, and the Infineon/Innoscience dispute is the highest-profile U.S. ITC action in this space.
The case illustrates a recurring dynamic in fast-moving semiconductor litigation: by the time the ITC issues a final determination (often 12–18 months into the investigation), the accused respondent has frequently already redesigned around the asserted patents. This leaves complainants with a symbolic win — exclusion of products that are no longer commercially relevant — rather than the market-clearing relief they sought. It also raises questions about whether ITC proceedings, originally designed for physical goods, are well-suited to the pace of semiconductor product development.
The multi-jurisdictional nature of GaN patent disputes also highlights the challenge of enforcing patents in a global market where the same technology is manufactured, sold, and patented differently in the U.S., China, and Europe — with each court system capable of reaching conflicting conclusions.