A German semiconductor giant launched lawsuits against a Chinese enterprise across the globe.
Instead of backing down, the Chinese firm counter-sued the giant in domestic courts.
What was the outcome?
Infineon was ruled to have infringed two core invention patents held by Innoscience, ordered to immediately halt sales and imports, and pay RMB 10 million in compensation.
The Supreme People’s Court upheld the injunction, effective immediately.
I. Global Legal Offensive Launched by Industry Giant; Chinese Firm Fights Back Head-On
Infineon is a world-leading power semiconductor conglomerate headquartered in Germany with a market cap of hundreds of billions of euros.
Innoscience is a Chinese third-generation semiconductor manufacturer ranking first globally in shipments of gallium nitride (GaN) power semiconductors, holding a 42.4% global market share. The company was listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange at the end of 2024.
In 2023, Infineon acquired Canadian GaNSystems for USD 830 million, gaining access to a large portfolio of GaN patents. Shortly afterward, Infineon initiated a wave of litigation targeting Innoscience worldwide, filing separate lawsuits in Germany and the United States.
-
March 2024: Infineon sued Innoscience for patent infringement in the California courts of the US.
-
August 2025: The Munich Regional Court in Germany ruled Innoscience infringed Infineon’s patents and banned relevant product sales in Germany.
-
May 7, 2026: The US International Trade Commission (ITC) determined Innoscience infringed one of Infineon’s patents.
Faced with coordinated overseas legal pressure, Innoscience shifted the main battlefield to China.
On January 16, 2025, Innoscience filed a lawsuit with the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court, alleging Infineon Technologies (China) Co., Ltd., Infineon Technologies (Wuxi) Co., Ltd. and other affiliates infringed its two core GaN invention patents.
II. Step 1: Secure Validity of Self-Owned Patents
Infineon struck back immediately by filing petitions to invalidate Innoscience’s patents.
On November 19, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued an examination decision maintaining the validity of both core GaN patents owned by Innoscience.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Infineon filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
On April 24, 2026, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a first-instance judgment fully dismissing Infineon’s claims and reaffirming the validity of Innoscience’s two GaN patents.
The court specifically noted in its written judgment that Innoscience’s structural design and manufacturing processes for GaN devices deliver marked technical advancements and do not constitute prior art.
With judicial confirmation of patent validity secured, the infringement trial proceeded.
III. Step 2: Suzhou Intermediate Court Confirms Infringement
On May 27, 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court handed down its first-instance judgment with three core rulings:
-
Infringement established: Infineon violated two core GaN invention patents held by Innoscience.
-
Immediate cease-and-desist order: Infineon must immediately stop selling, offering for sale, and importing all infringing products.
-
Compensation award: A total of RMB 10 million in economic damages payable to Innoscience across the two cases.
More critically, together with the judgment, the court issued two interim injunctions pending litigation against Infineon, which took effect on the day of service.
This meant Infineon was prohibited from selling relevant GaN products in China starting May 27.
IV. Step 3: Supreme People’s Court Upholds the Injunction
Refusing to accept the ruling, Infineon filed a reconsideration application with the Supreme People’s Court, seeking to overturn or delay enforcement of the injunctions.
On June 12, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court issued a written ruling on the injunction reconsideration, rejecting all of Infineon’s requests and sustaining the injunctions issued by the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court.
This constitutes a final ruling with no further avenue for appeal for Infineon.
Innoscience subsequently announced that the Supreme People’s Court had upheld the sales ban covering certain GaN products made by Infineon, drawing a conclusive close to the patent infringement dispute in China.
V. Global Litigation Landscape: Decisive Victory in China, Mixed Outcomes Elsewhere
This dispute is not an isolated case but the Chinese theater of a worldwide patent war.
-
China: Innoscience secured a decisive victory; Infineon faces a sales ban and RMB 10 million damages.
-
Germany: In August 2025, the Munich court ruled Innoscience liable for infringement and banned its local sales. On June 18, 2026, the same court ruled in Infineon’s favor in two additional cases. Innoscience stated its current product lines do not fall within the scope of Infineon’s German patents and remain unrestricted for sale in Germany.
-
United States: On May 7, 2026, the ITC found Innoscience infringed one Infineon patent but confirmed its existing products do not violate a second asserted patent, permitting continued import and sales in the US. During litigation, Innoscience implemented design-around strategies to modify its products and avoid the protected scope of Infineon’s patents.
The three jurisdictions saw split results, yet Innoscience achieved an overwhelming, definitive win on Chinese soil.
VI. Key Takeaways from the Case
-
Patents serve as both shield and spear
Many enterprises assume Chinese firms can only passively respond or settle when sued by international giants. This case proves otherwise: with core technology and high-quality patents, domestic companies can take proactive legal action and defeat global industry leaders on home ground.
-
Valid patents form the foundation of infringement litigation
Infineon’s primary tactic was to invalidate Innoscience’s patents. Innoscience withstood this challenge, with both CNIPA and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court upholding patent validity. Confirmation of stable patent rights laid the indispensable foundation for the subsequent infringement claim.
-
Interim injunctions pending litigation act as a powerful legal remedy
Alongside its judgment, the Suzhou court issued enforceable interim injunctions that took effect instantly, without waiting for a final verdict. Infineon lost market access to relevant products the very day the ruling landed. The Supreme People’s Court’s subsequent affirmation eliminated any possibility of reversal for Infineon.
-
Adopt a home-court mindset in global patent conflicts
Infineon initiated lawsuits against Innoscience in Germany and the US, while Innoscience counter-sued Infineon in China. Each party leverages its domestic judicial venue. Protecting intellectual property under familiar local legal frameworks is a fundamental strategy for cross-border patent battles.
Closing Remarks
The RMB 10 million compensation sum is negligible for Infineon financially.
However, the case carries far greater significance beyond monetary damages.
A Chinese third-generation semiconductor enterprise defeated a worldwide semiconductor giant by enforcing its self-developed core patents within its domestic jurisdiction.
This is not passive defense — it is proactive offense.
