Gallium Nitride Patent War: Dual Bans from China and Germany Split the Global Market

```

GaN refers to gallium nitride. It is a third-generation semiconductor material and an important representative of wide bandgap semiconductors. Simply put, the role of GaN power devices is to enable faster, more energy-efficient, smaller, and more efficient power conversion.

Therefore, it is used in scenarios such as fast charging, power adapters, data center power supplies, electric vehicles, photovoltaic energy storage, and industrial control.

In the past, when people looked at GaN, they mainly considered its technology, production capacity, yield, and cost. Now, the global patent battle between Infineon and Innoscience reminds us that after GaN commercialization truly accelerates, patents are also moving from the background to the foreground.

Whose products can be sold in the United States?

Whose products can be sold in Germany?

Whose products can be sold in China?

These questions are now being redefined by patent lawsuits and court injunctions.

I. Look at the Timeline First

The GaN patent battle between Infineon and Innoscience did not happen suddenly.

It is already a global offensive and defensive battle spanning the legal jurisdictions of the United States, Germany, and China.

In March 2024, Infineon took the lead in suing Innoscience in the United States.

Infineon, through its affiliates, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing Innoscience's related GaN products of infringing its U.S. patents and seeking a permanent injunction.

This was an important starting point for the public patent battle between the two parties.

In June 2024, the battleground shifted to Germany.

Infineon filed a corresponding lawsuit at the Munich District Court in Germany and applied for an injunction against Innoscience's related products. Subsequently, Germany became the main European battleground for the GaN patent war between the two sides.

In July 2024, Infineon expanded the scope of the U.S. lawsuit and launched a Section 337 investigation with the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Infineon added several GaN-related patents to the U.S. lawsuit and applied to the U.S. International Trade Commission in an attempt to block Innoscience’s related products from entering the U.S. market through import bans.

In 2024, the Chinese battleground opened.

Innoscience filed two invention patent infringement lawsuits against Infineon’s China company and Infineon Wuxi company at the Suzhou Intermediate Court, targeting Infineon’s CoolGaN G3 series gallium nitride semiconductor products.

This means that Innoscience is no longer just the passive respondent in lawsuits in Europe and the United States, but has started a counterattack in the Chinese domestic market.

In November 2025, the Innoscience Chinese patents involved in the case remained valid after being reviewed for invalidation.

The National Intellectual Property Administration made the decision to maintain the validity of the relevant invention patents after reviewing requests for invalidation. Subsequently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court also dismissed Infineon’s administrative lawsuit against the invalidation decision.

This provided a solid foundation for Innoscience to apply for injunctions in China.

In May 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission rendered a decision favorable to Infineon.

The U.S. International Trade Commission confirmed that some Innoscience products infringed Infineon’s GaN-related patents and issued import and sales bans. However, Innoscience emphasized that its current commercialized products are not substantively affected by this decision and can still be sold in the United States.

This already shows a feature of the patent war between the two companies: The judgments of courts and institutions often apply to specific patents, specific claims, and specific product models, while the companies’ external narratives focus more on the current product portfolio and customer confidence.

In May 2026, Suzhou Intermediate Court ruled in favor of Innoscience in the first instance.

Suzhou Intermediate Court ruled in two Chinese patent infringement cases that Infineon’s relevant products constituted patent infringement, ordered the cessation of infringement, and awarded Innoscience RMB 5 million in economic damages and reasonable expenses for each case, totaling about RMB 10 million.

At the same time, Suzhou Intermediate Court made a conduct preservation ruling, requiring Infineon to immediately stop offering for sale, selling, and importing the involved CoolGaN G3 series products, with the order remaining in effect until the judgment takes legal effect.

On June 12, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China upheld the Suzhou court’s injunction.

Infineon was dissatisfied with the conduct preservation order of the Suzhou court and applied for reconsideration to the Supreme People’s Court. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the request and upheld the conduct preservation ruling.

This means that in the Chinese market, Innoscience obtained an injunction with real binding force against Infineon’s involved GaN products.

On June 18, 2026, the Munich District Court in Germany supported some of Infineon's claims.

Infineon announced that the Munich District Court supported its claims in two further GaN patent infringement cases, prohibiting Innoscience from manufacturing, selling, and promoting additional products found to infringe and ordering compensation for damages.

However, Innoscience subsequently responded that the German court only found infringement in a limited range of old products, mainly involving some discontinued 650V to 700V packaged transistors; its currently sold GaN power device products are not affected and can continue to be commercialized in Germany.

At this point, the situation is already very clear:

On the U.S. battleground, Infineon has achieved a phased advantage, but Innoscience emphasizes its current products are not affected.

On the German battleground, Infineon continues to push for bans, but Innoscience emphasizes that only old products are restricted.

On the Chinese battleground, Innoscience achieved a counterattack, with the Supreme Court upholding the conduct preservation order against relevant Infineon products.

This is not about victory or defeat in a single case but is a global patent war involving multiple jurisdictions, multiple products, and multiple narratives.

II. Why Does This Patent War Affect the Global Market?

The GaN market has not yet fully solidified. This is precisely why the patent war has become important.

When an industry is already highly mature and the market structure is stable, patent lawsuits mostly affect compensation, licensing, and local product lines.

But GaN is still at a stage of rapid commercialization. Data center power supplies, electric vehicle power systems, photovoltaic energy storage, industrial power supplies, and consumer electronics fast charging could all be important scenarios for GaN’s expansion.

At this stage, whoever can be the first to enter customers’ supply chains, complete product validation, and lock downstream solutions may obtain a long-term market position.

Therefore, the value of an injunction is not just “not allowing a particular product to be sold.”

It can affect whether customers continue to adopt a certain supplier.

It can affect whether downstream companies change their design solutions.

It can affect the supply stability of a regional market.

It may also change the bargaining chips for future negotiations.

This is the special nature of the patent war between Infineon and Innoscience.

The two sides are not fighting over an ordinary component market, but over key entry points for future applications of wide bandgap semiconductors.

For Infineon, GaN is an important growth direction in its power semiconductor portfolio. It needs to use patents to protect its long-term technology investment and market position.

For Innoscience, GaN is the core track for entering the global power semiconductor market. It needs to prove that its products can not only be mass produced, delivered, and cost reduced, but also withstand intellectual property challenges in major markets.

So, the essence of this patent war is the competition over a single question: Who is qualified to continue expanding their share in the global GaN market?

III. The Two Injunctions in China and Germany Cut Open Two Market Entry Points

From the results, the courts in China and Germany have recently formed a very typical cross-injunction pattern.

In Germany, Infineon launched an attack against Innoscience.

In China, Innoscience countered Infineon.

The directions of these two injunctions are exactly opposite.

The German injunction aims at Innoscience’s space for product sales and promotion in the European market.

The Chinese injunction targets Infineon’s sales, offers for sale, and import of relevant GaN products into the Chinese market.

This indicates that, in a global semiconductor patent war, it is difficult for a company to play only an offensive role in all jurisdictions.

In the United States and Germany, Infineon is the active aggressor.

In China, Infineon has become the party subject to an injunction.

Similarly, Innoscience must respond to Infineon’s patent offensive in Europe and the United States, but can use domestic patents to allege infringement against Infineon products in China.

This is the reality of the global patent war:

Companies are not fighting a lawsuit in just one court, but are engaged in simultaneous games across multiple markets, courts, and patent portfolios.

A loss in one market may be balanced by a counteraction in another.

An injunction from one country may become a bargaining chip in global negotiations.

A product model change may alter the entire litigation narrative.

The real point of attention in the GaN patent war is not to judge who wins or loses, but to see how patents are beginning to reshape the global market.

IV. Behind the German Court’s Ruling: Patents Are Becoming Tools for Accessing the European Market

Germany has always been a major battleground for patent litigation in Europe. The reason is simple: the German market is important, the courts are efficient, and injunctive relief directly impacts companies.

In Infineon and Innoscience’s dispute, it’s no surprise that Infineon chose Germany as a key base for attack.

Germany is a major center for industrial manufacturing and automotive electronics in Europe and a vital market for power semiconductor applications.

Winning an injunction in Germany would affect not only sales in Germany but could also shake market confidence among Innoscience’s other European customers.

This is why Infineon emphasized in its announcement that the court supported its GaN patent claims and banned Innoscience from manufacturing, selling, and promoting more infringing products.

But Innoscience’s response is also crucial.

It did not simply deny the adverse ruling by the German court. Instead, it stressed that the infringement findings applied only to a limited range of old products, and that current commercialized products are not affected and can still be sold in Germany.

Behind this lies a very important capability in high-tech patent wars: design-around ability.

If a company can, through product iteration, bring current products outside the scope of the competitor’s patent protection, then even if older products are lost in litigation, current market supply may not be substantially affected.

Therefore, the lesson for companies on the German battleground is that in patent wars, the legal team is responsible for lawsuits, but the R&D team must also join the fight.

A truly mature defense involves not only filing legal briefs, but also redesigning products, switching models, explaining things to customers, and stabilizing the supply chain.

V. Two Courts Send the Same Signal

The German and Chinese courts have different legal systems and are at different case stages.

But they share a signal: In a new technology track like GaN, courts are no longer just institutions for awarding damages after the fact, but may also directly affect whether a product can enter the market through injunctions.

The German court’s support of part of Infineon’s patent claims shows the real deterrent of injunctive relief in the European market.

The Chinese Supreme Court’s upholding of conduct preservation shows that in patent cases with rapid technology iteration and short market windows, Chinese courts are also willing to use temporary injunctions to protect the rights holder’s market interests and the enforceability of their judgments.

This will have several effects on future semiconductor patent disputes.

First, injunctions will become a core tool in companies’ patent strategies.

In the past, companies fighting patent lawsuits focused mainly on the amount of damages.

But in fields such as GaN, SiC, AI chips, and power management chips, injunctions may be more important than damages.

Because damages address past losses, while injunctions affect future market access.

Second, companies will focus more on patent quality instead of simply pursuing quantity.

Truly valuable patents are not about numbers, but whether they can withstand invalidity challenges, cover competitors’ products, and be transformed into injunctions in key jurisdictions.

Third, global companies must be prepared for multi-jurisdictional battles.

Having patents only in China is not enough to support the global market.

Having patents only in the United States or Germany cannot avoid being countered in China by competitors either.

In the future, semiconductor companies’ patent layouts must cover major manufacturing locations, sales locations, customer locations, and core markets of competitors.

Fourth, product R&D must be coordinated with patent litigation.

Innoscience’s continued emphasis in Germany and the United States that current products are not affected reflects the importance of product iteration and design-around.

In high-tech patent wars, the best defense is sometimes not argument, but new products.

Fifth, downstream customers will consider IP risk in supply chain evaluations.

GaN devices are intermediate products. Once they enter servers, electric vehicles, or industrial power systems, the replacement cost is not low.

If a device is banned from sale, downstream customers may face pressure to redesign, retest, recertify, and reintegrate into the supply chain.

Therefore, future customers choosing GaN suppliers will not only look at price, performance, and lead time, but also intellectual property stability.

IP Power Judgment

Competition in wide bandgap semiconductors is not just about wafers, yield, cost, and customers, but also about whether patents can become injunctions and injunctions can become market leverage.

The GaN patent war is just beginning. What it truly shows semiconductor companies is that technology determines product height, but patents determine market access.

In global semiconductor competition, no market is naturally safe, and no company can rely on technology alone.

Source of this article: IP Power

Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market carries risks, and investments should be made cautiously. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account the special investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions mentioned in this article fit their specific circumstances. Any investments made accordingly are at their own risk. ```