China’s Top Court Affirms Injunction Barring Infineon from Selling GaN Products
Published 15 June 2026
Xia Yu
On 12 June 2026, Innoscience (Suzhou) Semiconductor Co., Ltd. (“Innoscience”) formally announced on its official website that the Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) had issued a reconsideration ruling on an interim injunction on the same day, upholding the interim injunction (i.e., sales ban) issued by the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court (“Suzhou Intermediate Court”) on 27 May 2026 against Infineon, which took effect immediately upon service. This means that, as of the service of the ruling, Infineon’s relevant gallium nitride (GaN) products are prohibited from being sold, offered for sale or imported within the territory of China.
This ruling, together with the first-instance judgment previously rendered by the Suzhou Intermediate Court, forms a dual legal deterrent. On 27 May 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate Court issued a first-instance judgment, finding that Infineon had infringed two core GaN invention patents owned by Innoscience, ordering it to immediately cease the infringement and pay RMB 10 million (approximately US$1.38 million) in damages, with the judgment taking effect immediately. On the same day, the court separately issued two rulings on interim injunction, which also took effect immediately. Infineon applied to the SPC for reconsideration of the injunction rulings. On 12 June 2026, the SPC rejected the reconsideration application and upheld the injunction. Under the Civil Procedure Law of China [ http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202401/P020240108541839745616.pdf ] (“Civil Procedure Law”), the SPC’s decision on such a reconsideration ruling is a final ruling and is not appealable.
Case Summary
Innoscience is a Chinese semiconductor company focused exclusively on gallium nitride (GaN) power devices, recognized as the world’s first company to mass-produce 8-inch silicon-based GaN-on-Si wafers and a leading innovator in the third-generation semiconductor field. Infineon is a German semiconductor manufacturer and a global leader in power systems and IoT solutions, serving automotive, industrial, and consumer electronics markets with a broad portfolio that includes silicon, silicon carbide (SiC) and gallium nitride (GaN) power semiconductors
On 25 November 2024, the Suzhou Intermediate Court formally accepted the lawsuit brought by Innoscience (Suzhou) Technology Co., Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Innoscience (Suzhou) Semiconductor Co., Ltd. against Infineon Technologies (China) Co., Ltd., Infineon Technologies (Wuxi) Co., Ltd. and the distributor Suzhou Xinwoke Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., for infringement of invention patent rights in two cases, with docket numbers (2024) Su 05 Min Chu No. 1430 (Patent 1: No. 202311774650.7, a GaN power device and preparation method thereof) and (2024) Su 05 Min Chu No. 1431 (Patent 2: No. 202211387983.X, a nitride-based semiconductor device and manufacturing method thereof).
On 16 May 2025, Infineon filed a request for invalidation of the above two patents with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”). On 19 November 2025, the CNIPA issued an invalidation decision: for Patent 1, the patent was maintained in full; for Patent 2, Innoscience had proactively filed amended claims 1 to 20 on 20 June 2025, and the CNIPA maintained the patent validity based on the amended text (i.e., a partial invalidation of the original scope of protection). Infineon, dissatisfied with the decisions, filed an administrative lawsuits with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (“BJIPC”).
On 24 April 2026, the BJIPC rendered a first-instance judgment in the two patent administrative lawsuits, dismissing all of Infineon’s claims and confirming the validity of the two patents.
On 27 May 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate Court issued a first-instance judgment in the infringement lawsuits, finding that Infineon had committed infringement and ordering it to immediately cease the infringing acts, including sales, offers for sale and imports, and to pay Innoscience a total of RMB 10 million (approximately US$1.38 million) in damages, with the judgment taking effect immediately. Served together with the two judgments were two rulings on interim injunction issued by the Suzhou Intermediate Court against Infineon, which likewise took effect immediately. Infineon immediately sought reconsideration of the two injunction rulings with the SPC.
On 12 June 2026, the SPC issued a reconsideration ruling, rejecting all of Infineon’s reconsideration requests and upholding the Suzhou Intermediate Court’s injunction. Under China’s current judicial system, a party may not further appeal a reconsideration ruling of the SPC. Thus, Infineon is unable to seek any further legal remedy in respect of these two reconsideration rulings.
Application for and Ruling on the Interim Injunction: Legal Requirements and Finality
Interim injunction, referred to as “conduct preservation” in Chinese procedural law, is an emergency relief measure provided for in the Civil Procedure Law, aimed at preventing irreparable harm to the right holder caused by the continuation of the alleged infringing conduct during the course of litigation. In this case, on the basis that the validity of the patents had already received dual support from the CNIPA’s invalidation decision and the BJIPC’s first-instance administrative judgment, Innoscience timely filed an application for conduct preservation at an appropriate time between April 2026 and 27 May 2026. This strategic timing – first solidifying the rights foundation before applying for the injunction – significantly increased the likelihood of the injunction being granted.
After accepting the application, the Suzhou Intermediate Court, following the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Examination of Conduct Preservation Cases in Intellectual Property Disputes [ https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/135341.html ], should have comprehensively considered the following five factors:1. Stability of the right: The two patents in question had been confirmed by the CNIPA’s invalidation examination and the BJIPC’s first-instance administrative judgment, demonstrating strong stability.2. Likelihood of infringement: Through technical comparison, the Suzhou Intermediate Court determined that Infineon’s relevant GaN products fell within the scope of protection of the patents in question.3. Irreparable harm: The GaN market is highly competitive, and continuous infringing conduct would lead to irreversible loss of market share and price erosion.4. Balance of interests: The injunction only targets specific infringing products and does not involve major public interests such as public health.5. Security: Courts typically require the applicant to provide security. In this case, Innoscience should have provided such security (the specific amount has not been disclosed).
On 27 May 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate Court issued rulings on interim injunction in the two cases – two rulings in total – which were served and became effective on the same day as the first-instance judgments. The simultaneous issuance of the injunction and the judgment, which is uncommon in patent infringement litigation, reflects the court’s clear determination of the facts of the case and its emphasis on prompt relief. More critically, under Article 111 of the Civil Procedure Law, the reconsideration period does not suspend the execution of the ruling, and the SPC’s reconsideration ruling is a final ruling and not appealable. This makes the injunction in this case a procedurally “absolutely final” remedy – even if the second instance of the administrative litigation on patent validity were to produce a different outcome in the future, the market losses caused by the already enforced injunction would be difficult to remedy, and Infineon would have to file a separate claim for damages.
Global Showdown: Comparison of Injunction Systems in China, the US and Germany
This case is a typical cross-border patent dispute, with Infineon and Innoscience conducting parallel litigations in China, the US and Germany, and both parties having obtained interim injunctions in different jurisdictions. The differences among the three jurisdictions’ systems have profoundly shaped the respective litigation strategies.
In June 2024, Infineon successfully applied for an ex parte interim injunction against Innoscience in the Munich I Regional Court in Germany, requiring Innoscience to remove the accused products from the PCIM Europe exhibition. This injunction was made ex parte, i.e., issued directly without notifying Innoscience or giving it an opportunity to be heard. The German system allows the applicant to request an injunction without a hearing on grounds of urgency (e.g., an upcoming exhibition). However, such an injunction is not final; the respondent may apply for reconsideration. Innoscience pointed out that Infineon adopted a so-called “strategic” approach: first threatening to apply for an injunction in the Nuremberg court, then, after Innoscience filed a protective submission with the Nuremberg court, actually filing the application with the Munich court instead, resulting in Innoscience being unable to learn of the application in time and being deprived of the opportunity to be heard.
In the US, Infineon filed a Section 337 investigation with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) (Case No. 337-TA-1414). On 2 December 2025, the ITC Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination: finding that Innoscience had infringed one patent, but confirming that its current GaN power device products on the market used a design‑around and did not constitute infringement. On 7 May 2026, the full ITC affirmed the initial determination and issued a limited exclusion order (LEO) and a cease and desist order (CDO), reiterating that the orders were directed only at Innoscience’s discontinued legacy products and that its current products could continue to be imported and sold in the US without restriction. As a result, the ITC orders have no material impact on Innoscience’s US business.
In contrast to the German ex parte injunction, China’s conduct preservation procedure emphasises party participation and the remedy of reconsideration. The applicant must file a formal application, and the court typically notifies the respondent and hears its views (except in urgent circumstances), before issuing a ruling after comprehensive assessment of the relevant factors. A respondent dissatisfied with the ruling may apply to the court at the next higher level for reconsideration. In this case, the SPC reconsideration procedure provided Infineon with a remedy channel, and the SPC ultimately upheld the original injunction.
Conclusion
China is one of Infineon’s most important markets. This injunction means that Infineon’s relevant GaN products are fully prohibited from sale within China, and Infineon’s GaN business in China is likely to suffer a material impact, with market shares potentially being eroded by competitors. Infineon’s GaN business in China may face irreversible losses. Once the injunction takes effect, existing customers may turn to other suppliers (including Innoscience), and even if the subsequent patent litigation were to be reversed, the lost market share would be very difficult to recover. This demonstrates the commercial lethal force of interim injunctions. At a higher level, this case sends a clear signal that the patent competition surrounding core technologies has entered a stage of multipolar contest, and that the Chinese judicial system is strengthening its protection of the independent intellectual property rights of domestic enterprises. For the global semiconductor industry, this case is a landmark development worthy of in-depth study.
This ruling, together with the first-instance judgment previously rendered by the Suzhou Intermediate Court, forms a dual legal deterrent. On 27 May 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate Court issued a first-instance judgment, finding that Infineon had infringed two core GaN invention patents owned by Innoscience, ordering it to immediately cease the infringement and pay RMB 10 million (approximately US$1.38 million) in damages, with the judgment taking effect immediately. On the same day, the court separately issued two rulings on interim injunction, which also took effect immediately. Infineon applied to the SPC for reconsideration of the injunction rulings. On 12 June 2026, the SPC rejected the reconsideration application and upheld the injunction. Under the Civil Procedure Law of China [ http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202401/P020240108541839745616.pdf ] (“Civil Procedure Law”), the SPC’s decision on such a reconsideration ruling is a final ruling and is not appealable.
Case Summary
Innoscience is a Chinese semiconductor company focused exclusively on gallium nitride (GaN) power devices, recognized as the world’s first company to mass-produce 8-inch silicon-based GaN-on-Si wafers and a leading innovator in the third-generation semiconductor field. Infineon is a German semiconductor manufacturer and a global leader in power systems and IoT solutions, serving automotive, industrial, and consumer electronics markets with a broad portfolio that includes silicon, silicon carbide (SiC) and gallium nitride (GaN) power semiconductors
On 25 November 2024, the Suzhou Intermediate Court formally accepted the lawsuit brought by Innoscience (Suzhou) Technology Co., Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Innoscience (Suzhou) Semiconductor Co., Ltd. against Infineon Technologies (China) Co., Ltd., Infineon Technologies (Wuxi) Co., Ltd. and the distributor Suzhou Xinwoke Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., for infringement of invention patent rights in two cases, with docket numbers (2024) Su 05 Min Chu No. 1430 (Patent 1: No. 202311774650.7, a GaN power device and preparation method thereof) and (2024) Su 05 Min Chu No. 1431 (Patent 2: No. 202211387983.X, a nitride-based semiconductor device and manufacturing method thereof).
On 16 May 2025, Infineon filed a request for invalidation of the above two patents with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”). On 19 November 2025, the CNIPA issued an invalidation decision: for Patent 1, the patent was maintained in full; for Patent 2, Innoscience had proactively filed amended claims 1 to 20 on 20 June 2025, and the CNIPA maintained the patent validity based on the amended text (i.e., a partial invalidation of the original scope of protection). Infineon, dissatisfied with the decisions, filed an administrative lawsuits with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (“BJIPC”).
On 24 April 2026, the BJIPC rendered a first-instance judgment in the two patent administrative lawsuits, dismissing all of Infineon’s claims and confirming the validity of the two patents.
On 27 May 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate Court issued a first-instance judgment in the infringement lawsuits, finding that Infineon had committed infringement and ordering it to immediately cease the infringing acts, including sales, offers for sale and imports, and to pay Innoscience a total of RMB 10 million (approximately US$1.38 million) in damages, with the judgment taking effect immediately. Served together with the two judgments were two rulings on interim injunction issued by the Suzhou Intermediate Court against Infineon, which likewise took effect immediately. Infineon immediately sought reconsideration of the two injunction rulings with the SPC.
On 12 June 2026, the SPC issued a reconsideration ruling, rejecting all of Infineon’s reconsideration requests and upholding the Suzhou Intermediate Court’s injunction. Under China’s current judicial system, a party may not further appeal a reconsideration ruling of the SPC. Thus, Infineon is unable to seek any further legal remedy in respect of these two reconsideration rulings.
Application for and Ruling on the Interim Injunction: Legal Requirements and Finality
Interim injunction, referred to as “conduct preservation” in Chinese procedural law, is an emergency relief measure provided for in the Civil Procedure Law, aimed at preventing irreparable harm to the right holder caused by the continuation of the alleged infringing conduct during the course of litigation. In this case, on the basis that the validity of the patents had already received dual support from the CNIPA’s invalidation decision and the BJIPC’s first-instance administrative judgment, Innoscience timely filed an application for conduct preservation at an appropriate time between April 2026 and 27 May 2026. This strategic timing – first solidifying the rights foundation before applying for the injunction – significantly increased the likelihood of the injunction being granted.
After accepting the application, the Suzhou Intermediate Court, following the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Examination of Conduct Preservation Cases in Intellectual Property Disputes [ https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/135341.html ], should have comprehensively considered the following five factors:1. Stability of the right: The two patents in question had been confirmed by the CNIPA’s invalidation examination and the BJIPC’s first-instance administrative judgment, demonstrating strong stability.2. Likelihood of infringement: Through technical comparison, the Suzhou Intermediate Court determined that Infineon’s relevant GaN products fell within the scope of protection of the patents in question.3. Irreparable harm: The GaN market is highly competitive, and continuous infringing conduct would lead to irreversible loss of market share and price erosion.4. Balance of interests: The injunction only targets specific infringing products and does not involve major public interests such as public health.5. Security: Courts typically require the applicant to provide security. In this case, Innoscience should have provided such security (the specific amount has not been disclosed).
On 27 May 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate Court issued rulings on interim injunction in the two cases – two rulings in total – which were served and became effective on the same day as the first-instance judgments. The simultaneous issuance of the injunction and the judgment, which is uncommon in patent infringement litigation, reflects the court’s clear determination of the facts of the case and its emphasis on prompt relief. More critically, under Article 111 of the Civil Procedure Law, the reconsideration period does not suspend the execution of the ruling, and the SPC’s reconsideration ruling is a final ruling and not appealable. This makes the injunction in this case a procedurally “absolutely final” remedy – even if the second instance of the administrative litigation on patent validity were to produce a different outcome in the future, the market losses caused by the already enforced injunction would be difficult to remedy, and Infineon would have to file a separate claim for damages.
Global Showdown: Comparison of Injunction Systems in China, the US and Germany
This case is a typical cross-border patent dispute, with Infineon and Innoscience conducting parallel litigations in China, the US and Germany, and both parties having obtained interim injunctions in different jurisdictions. The differences among the three jurisdictions’ systems have profoundly shaped the respective litigation strategies.
In June 2024, Infineon successfully applied for an ex parte interim injunction against Innoscience in the Munich I Regional Court in Germany, requiring Innoscience to remove the accused products from the PCIM Europe exhibition. This injunction was made ex parte, i.e., issued directly without notifying Innoscience or giving it an opportunity to be heard. The German system allows the applicant to request an injunction without a hearing on grounds of urgency (e.g., an upcoming exhibition). However, such an injunction is not final; the respondent may apply for reconsideration. Innoscience pointed out that Infineon adopted a so-called “strategic” approach: first threatening to apply for an injunction in the Nuremberg court, then, after Innoscience filed a protective submission with the Nuremberg court, actually filing the application with the Munich court instead, resulting in Innoscience being unable to learn of the application in time and being deprived of the opportunity to be heard.
In the US, Infineon filed a Section 337 investigation with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) (Case No. 337-TA-1414). On 2 December 2025, the ITC Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination: finding that Innoscience had infringed one patent, but confirming that its current GaN power device products on the market used a design‑around and did not constitute infringement. On 7 May 2026, the full ITC affirmed the initial determination and issued a limited exclusion order (LEO) and a cease and desist order (CDO), reiterating that the orders were directed only at Innoscience’s discontinued legacy products and that its current products could continue to be imported and sold in the US without restriction. As a result, the ITC orders have no material impact on Innoscience’s US business.
In contrast to the German ex parte injunction, China’s conduct preservation procedure emphasises party participation and the remedy of reconsideration. The applicant must file a formal application, and the court typically notifies the respondent and hears its views (except in urgent circumstances), before issuing a ruling after comprehensive assessment of the relevant factors. A respondent dissatisfied with the ruling may apply to the court at the next higher level for reconsideration. In this case, the SPC reconsideration procedure provided Infineon with a remedy channel, and the SPC ultimately upheld the original injunction.
Conclusion
China is one of Infineon’s most important markets. This injunction means that Infineon’s relevant GaN products are fully prohibited from sale within China, and Infineon’s GaN business in China is likely to suffer a material impact, with market shares potentially being eroded by competitors. Infineon’s GaN business in China may face irreversible losses. Once the injunction takes effect, existing customers may turn to other suppliers (including Innoscience), and even if the subsequent patent litigation were to be reversed, the lost market share would be very difficult to recover. This demonstrates the commercial lethal force of interim injunctions. At a higher level, this case sends a clear signal that the patent competition surrounding core technologies has entered a stage of multipolar contest, and that the Chinese judicial system is strengthening its protection of the independent intellectual property rights of domestic enterprises. For the global semiconductor industry, this case is a landmark development worthy of in-depth study.