Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: Infineon v. Innoscience (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1414)

This litigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) involves a patent infringement dispute between Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. and Infineon Technologies Austria AG (collectively, "Infineon"), and Innoscience (Suzhou) Technology Company, Ltd., Innoscience (Suzhou) Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd., and Innoscience America, Inc. (collectively, "Innoscience"). Infineon, a prominent operating company in the semiconductor industry, initiated the complaint. Innoscience is also an operating company, recognized as a global leader in gallium nitride (GaN) power devices. The accused products are certain semiconductor devices and products containing the same, specifically gallium nitride (GaN) power devices.

Initially, Infineon asserted infringement of four U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,264,003, along with 9,899,481, 8,686,562, and 9,070,755. However, all asserted claims of the '003 patent were terminated from the investigation on April 29, 2025, through an unopposed motion by the Complainants. U.S. Patent No. 8,264,003 generally relates to a merged cascode transistor, suitable for high voltage, high-speed switching applications, featuring a single FET with two merged gates.

The case, designated as Investigation No. 337-TA-1414, was instituted by the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 30, 2024. The procedural posture is an ITC Section 337 investigation, which is known for its expedited nature and the potential for powerful remedies like exclusion orders (import bans) and cease and desist orders that can quickly impact the U.S. market. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Moore presided over the evidentiary hearing and issued a Final Initial Determination on December 2, 2025. The full Commission issued its final determination on May 7, 2026, affirming a violation for some claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481 with respect to Innoscience's historical products, but confirming that Innoscience's current GaN power devices do not infringe Infineon's patents and may continue to be imported and sold in the United States without restriction. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders, which entered a 60-day Presidential review period following the May 7, 2026, determination. This case is notable due to the critical role of GaN technology in various high-growth sectors such as renewable energy, AI data centers, industrial automation, and electric vehicles. The outcome, which largely favored Innoscience's current products despite a finding of infringement on legacy items, highlights the intensity of intellectual property disputes in the advanced semiconductor industry and the strategic importance of rapid design-arounds in ITC litigation. Parallel infringement actions are also ongoing in Germany and China.

The key legal developments and outcome for ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1414, Infineon v. Innoscience, are detailed below in chronological order:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filing: Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. and Infineon Technologies Austria AG (collectively, "Infineon") filed their Section 337 complaint on July 26, 2024, which was received by the ITC on the same day. The complaint alleged infringement of four U.S. patents: 8,264,003, 9,899,481, 8,686,562, and 9,070,755.
• Institution of Investigation: The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1414 on August 30, 2024.
• Amendment to Complaint: On November 4, 2024, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination (Order No. 7, issued October 10, 2024) that granted an unopposed motion to amend the complaint, correcting the corporate title of one of the respondents to Innoscience (Suzhou) Technology Holding Co., Ltd.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Termination of '003 Patent Claims: On April 29, 2025, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination (Order No. 27, issued April 3, 2025) granting Infineon's unopposed motion to terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,264,003 and claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481.
• Termination of '562 Patent Claims: On May 20, 2025, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination (Order No. 46, issued April 30, 2025) granting Infineon's unopposed motion to terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,686,562.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A Markman hearing was held on January 15, 2025.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Innoscience employed a strategy of challenging the asserted patents on non-infringement and invalidity grounds, while also developing redesigned products to circumvent Infineon's patents.
• Innoscience requested the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to adjudicate its redesigned products, which the ALJ ultimately ruled fell outside the scope of the remaining patents.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Evidentiary Hearing: A hearing was held from May 19-22, 2025.
• Final Initial Determination (FID): On December 2, 2025, the ALJ issued a Final Initial Determination (FID). The ALJ found a violation of Section 337 by Innoscience with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481, and no violation with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755. The FID also confirmed the legal validity of the two patents asserted by Infineon at that stage. The ALJ recommended an exclusion order targeting the accused products.
• Petitions for Review of FID: On December 15, 2025, Innoscience filed a petition for review of the FID's finding of violation as to the '481 patent. On the same day, Infineon filed a petition for review of the FID's finding of no violation as to the '755 patent.
• Commission's Review of FID: On February 2, 2026, the Commission determined to review in part the ALJ's FID.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Extension of Target Date: On March 27, 2026, the Commission extended the target date for completion of the investigation to May 7, 2026.
• Final Determination: On May 7, 2026, the full Commission issued its final determination, affirming a violation of Section 337. The Commission found that Innoscience had infringed two claims of Infineon's U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481. However, the Commission also partially reversed the ALJ's invalidity analysis, finding that Innoscience had proven several other claims of the '481 patent were invalid.
• Remedy: The Commission issued a limited exclusion order (LEO) prohibiting the unlicensed entry of infringing products and cease and desist orders. A bond of one hundred percent (100%) was imposed for infringing products imported during the 60-day Presidential review period.
• Outcome for Current Products: Notably, the Commission's decision confirmed that Innoscience's current GaN power devices do not infringe Infineon's patents and can continue to be imported and sold in the United States without restriction. The exclusion and cease and desist orders primarily target specific historical products found to be infringing.
• Investigation Termination: The investigation was terminated on May 7, 2026.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect:

• No information regarding parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents and their direct effect on this ITC litigation was found in the provided search results.

8. Other Parallel Litigation:

• Germany: Infineon has parallel infringement actions ongoing in Germany. In August 2025, the Munich District Court I found infringement of another Infineon patent by Innoscience. The German patent office also confirmed the validity of an Infineon patent (in slightly amended form) which Infineon is asserting in the Munich District Court.
• China: In January 2025, Innoscience initiated proceedings before the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court in China against Infineon, alleging infringement of two of its GaN power device patents. Infineon's jurisdictional objection and subsequent appeal to the Supreme People's Court were dismissed. In April 2026, Innoscience announced victories in two patent administrative litigation cases before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which upheld the validity of its two core GaN technology invention patents and rejected Infineon's invalidation requests. More recently, on May 27, 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court found that Infineon had infringed two of Innoscience's GaN technology patents and ordered Infineon to cease infringing activities and pay RMB 10 million (approximately US$1.38 million) in damages. China's Supreme People's Court officially upheld this sales injunction against Infineon's relevant GaN products within mainland China on June 15, 2026, making the decision final and enforceable.

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. and Infineon Technologies Austria AG ("Infineon") are represented by counsel from multiple firms in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1414.

Turner Boyd Seraphine

• Karen I. Boyd, Partner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm location: San Jose, California.
  • Ms. Boyd has extensive experience in intellectual property litigation, particularly in Section 337 investigations before the ITC.
• Megan Whyman Olesek, Partner
  • Firm location: San Jose, California.
  • Ms. Olesek is experienced in intellectual property disputes and ITC litigation.

Wolf Greenfield

• Gregory F. Corbett, Shareholder (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm location: Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Mr. Corbett is a recognized intellectual property litigator, handling patent infringement cases across various technologies.
• Charles T. Steenburg, Shareholder
  • Firm location: Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Mr. Steenburg focuses on patent litigation and has experience in complex technology disputes.
• Bryan S. Conley, Shareholder
  • Firm location: Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Mr. Conley's practice includes patent litigation, particularly in the electrical and computer technology sectors.
• Jie Xiang, Shareholder
  • Firm location: Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Ms. Xiang has experience in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings, often involving electrical and software technologies.
• Samuel L. Doskocil, Associate
  • Firm location: Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Mr. Doskocil practices in patent litigation across a range of technical fields.
• Libbie A. DiMarco, Associate
  • Firm location: Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Ms. DiMarco's work includes patent litigation and intellectual property counseling.
• John W. McGrath, Shareholder
  • Firm location: Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Mr. McGrath has a focus on patent litigation and has represented clients in various technology sectors.
• Eric J. Rutt, Shareholder
  • Firm location: Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Mr. Rutt's practice includes patent litigation, with experience in electrical and mechanical technologies.
• Suresh S. Rav, Of Counsel
  • Firm location: Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Mr. Rav brings experience in patent prosecution and litigation, particularly in electrical engineering and computer science.

Infineon also maintains an in-house legal and patent department that manages its intellectual property rights and supports litigation efforts.

The defendants in this ITC investigation, Innoscience (Suzhou) Technology Company, Ltd., Innoscience (Suzhou) Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd., and Innoscience America, Inc., were represented by attorneys from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP and K&L Gates LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for the defendants:

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Washington, D.C. office primarily, with other offices contributing)

• Lionel M. Lavenue (Partner, Reston, VA): Mr. Lavenue is a partner at Finnegan and was quoted regarding Innoscience's victory in the initial determination. He has significant experience in ITC litigation.
• Daniel G. Chung (Partner, Washington, D.C.): Mr. Chung's practice focuses on complex IP litigation and strategic IP counseling, including patent and trade secret disputes before U.S. district courts and the ITC. He has experience across various mechanical and electrical technologies, including consumer electronics and medical devices.
• Daniel F. Klodowski (Partner, Washington, D.C.): Mr. Klodowski focuses on post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, patent litigation in district courts and the ITC, and patent prosecution. He has experience in mechanical and electrical technologies.
• Chen Zang, Ph.D. (Partner, likely Washington, D.C. or another U.S. office): Dr. Zang frequently litigates before U.S. district courts and the ITC and has an active practice before the USPTO in patent drafting, prosecution, and post-grant proceedings.
• Smith R. Brittingham (Partner, Washington, D.C.): Mr. Brittingham is listed as a contact for Finnegan's ITC litigation experience.
• Daniel F. Seitz (Attorney, Munich, Germany): Mr. Seitz, admitted in Germany, advises and represents clients in patent litigation before national German courts, with a focus on mechanics and electronics, including semiconductors. He also advises on licensing and IP rights transfer. While based in Munich, his expertise in semiconductors is highly relevant given the global nature of the litigation.

Finnegan is a well-known intellectual property law firm with a strong reputation in patent litigation, particularly in ITC Section 337 investigations.

K&L Gates LLP (Dallas, TX office, among others)

• Michael J. Abernathy (Role not specified for this case, but typically lead counsel in patent litigation; formerly Global Co-Practice Leader of K&L Gates' IP group): Mr. Abernathy concentrates on patent, trade secret, and antitrust litigation. He has first-chair trial experience and has handled Section 337 investigations at the ITC. He joined Morgan Lewis in 2016, so his involvement would have been earlier in the case's lifecycle if he was part of the initial defense strategy.

K&L Gates has a global intellectual property practice with experience in all aspects of IP litigation, including ITC Section 337 investigations.