Context: Innoscience has opened a Chinese front in the multi-jurisdictional gallium nitride (GaN) patent dispute with Infineon (ip fray category: Infineon v. Innoscience). The Chinese company sued Infineon in the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court—a court in Innoscience’s home city—over two GaN-related Chinese invention patents, 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). The latest development concerns a Chinese injunction against certain Infineon GaN products – the procedural nature of which has become a point of dispute.
What’s new: Innoscience has announced a “final victory in China” after the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) maintained a sales injunction against certain Infineon GaN products. Innoscience’s announcement says the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court previously found Infineon to infringe two Innoscience GaN patents, ordered Infineon to cease sales, offers for sale, and imports of the accused products, and awarded RMB 10 million ($1.38 million) in damages (June 13, 2026 Innoscience press release). However, in a statement to ip fray (full statement below box), Infineon said the SPC decision concerned preliminary injunction (PI) relief and that the main proceedings remain ongoing. This characterization is consistent with the timeline of the Chinese proceedings, with the reconsideration mechanism available for Chinese PI, and checks with China-based patent-litigation sources.
Direct impact: Innoscience has obtained interim injunctive leverage in China, but the practical effect appears narrower than the company’s “final victory” framing suggests. The SPC decision leaves in place PI relief against certain Infineon GaN products, which may restrict sales, offers for sale, and imports of those products in the Chinese market while the main proceedings continue. Chinese PI relief is typically backed by security, and its practical effect depends on the scope of enforcement and subsequent procedural developments, which is another reason not to equate it with a final permanent injunction. Infineon states that the decision has “only a very limited impact” on its GaN business because it affects only a small portion of its GaN portfolio.
Wider ramifications: The dispute is now as much about procedural framing as about the injunction itself. Innoscience can point to PI relief in China as a counterweight to Infineon’s recent wins in the U.S. and Germany, but the procedural, product, and territorial scope should not be overstated: the SPC decision concerns PI relief, the main proceedings remain ongoing, and Infineon says the ruling is limited to certain products in China and has no impact on the global market. The timing is also notable because the Munich I Regional Court is scheduled to hear two further Infineon v. Innoscience cases this week1, meaning the parties’ global leverage may shift again very soon.
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
- ip fray understands that the two Munich hearings this week concern Infineon’s remaining June 2026 Munich trials against Innoscience: one over another German patent and one over a German utility model. Public materials indicate that the patent side is likely to concern DE102017100947B4, the patent underlying Infineon’s June 2024 Munich ex parte PI, while the utility-model case appears to concern the related German utility model DE202017007691U1. Infineon has publicly stated that it is asserting three patents and one utility model in Munich, that one patent was already found infringed in August 2025, and that trials over another patent and a utility model were scheduled for June 2026. ↩︎
- The reference to “Bezirksgericht Suzhou” in Infineon’s German statement should be understood as referring to the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court. The Chinese case is not before a district-level court. ↩︎
- InnoScience (Suzhou) Technology Holding Co., Ltd., “Lawsuits Initiated by the Group,” HKEX voluntary announcement, Jan. 16, 2025. ↩︎
- Innoscience press release, “Innoscience Secures Two Milestone Victories Against Infineon at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court,” Apr. 24, 2026. ↩︎
- Innoscience press release, “Innoscience Secures Final Victory in Patent Lawsuit as China’s Supreme Court Upholds Injunction Against Infineon GaN Products,” June 13, 2026; IP Economy. ↩︎
- Under China’s preservation framework, urgent preservation applications may be decided quickly and, if granted, take immediate effect. Separately, Art. 14 of the SPC IP behavior-preservation interpretation provides that a court must examine and rule on a reconsideration request against a behavior-preservation order within ten days. ↩︎
- Article 2 of the amended Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Intellectual Property Court. ↩︎
- Article 3 of SPC Notice Fa [2023] No. 183. ↩︎
- Articles 11 and 16 of the SPC Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Reviewing Cases Involving Behavior Preservation in Intellectual Property Disputes (Fa Shi [2018] No. 21). ↩︎