Context: Innoscience and Infineon have been embroiled in a multi-jurisdictional gallium nitride (GaN) patent infringement dispute since March 2024:
- In the U.S. prong, Infineon has emerged mostly successful, with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) delivering its final decision and terminating its investigation in its favor last month (May 7, 2026 ip fray article). The decision mostly upheld Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Bryan F. Moore’s findings that Innoscience had violated U.S. Tariff Act Section 337, ordering an import ban on several of Innoscience’s GaN products (December 4, 2025 ip fray article). However, it also found that Innoscience had proven several of the patent-at-issue’s claims were invalid.
- In the Chinese prong, local company Innoscience sued Infineon in the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court over patent infringement, while Infineon challenged the patents’ validity and tried (May 7, 2026 ip fray article), unsuccessfully, to move the dispute away from Suzhou (December 4, 2025 ip fray article).
- Meanwhile, in Germany, Infineon was granted an ex parte preliminary injunction in June 2024 (June 16, 2024 ip fray article) and August 2025 (August 4, 2025 ip fray article), over two of the patents-in-suit.
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
Counsel
Germany
Infineon is being represented by Dr. Constantin Kurtz, Dr. Stefan Eck, Maximilian Reif at KLAKA Rechtsanwälte, as well as Dr. Dirk Szynka and Dr. Tobias Smorodin at Szynka Smorodin Patentanwälte.
Meanwhile, Innoscience is being represented by a team at Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner.
U.S.
Infineon is represented by Turner Boyd Seraphine’s Karen I. Boyd and Megan Whyman Olesek; and Wolf Greenfield’s Gregory F. Corbett, Charles T. Steenburg, Bryan S. Conley, Jie Xiang, Samuel L. Doskocil, Libbie A. DiMarco, John W. McGrath, Eric J. Rutt, and Suresh S. Rav.
Innoscience is represented by Finnegan’s Sneha Nyshadham, Forrest A. Jones, and Lionel M. Lavenue.