Road to victory: how Innoscience turned an ITC threat into an approval hearing of its redesigns and secured uninterrupted market access

Innoscience did not simply defend itself in a high-stakes Section 337 investigation at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”)—it rewrote the playbook. Rather than waiting for a final ruling on the accused products, Innoscience pursued and implemented critical redesigns during the ITC investigation itself, forcing those redesigned products into the case and securing a formal non-infringement ruling from both the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission. The result was extraordinary: by the time the investigation concluded, the very products driving Innoscience’s business had already been cleared by the ITC. What began as a multi-patent effort by Infineon to block market access instead collapsed into a decisive outcome—the investigation ended with Innoscience walking away with uninterrupted US market access and a forward-looking endorsement of its next-generation GaN power devices.

Targeting growth: Infineon’s ITC campaign

The dispute began in July 2024, when Infineon asserted four US patents at the ITC and sought to exclude Innoscience’s GaN products from the United States.

The ITC is no ordinary venue. Its ability to impose exclusion orders—effectively shutting products out of the US market—makes it a powerful tool for companies seeking immediate commercial leverage. Here, the timing and scope of Infineon’s case reflected a familiar strategy: use the ITC to slow a fast-moving rival at precisely the moment it is gaining traction.

Innoscience sits squarely in that trajectory. GaN is not just an incremental improvement over silicon—it is a generational shift. Compared to conventional silicon devices, GaN power devices switch faster, run more efficiently, generate less heat, and enable smaller, lighter systems. These advantages are critical for modern applications ranging from electric vehicles and renewable energy to data centers and high-performance computing. As artificial intelligence drives unprecedented demand for computing power—and, with it, energy efficiency—GaN technologies are emerging as a foundational enabler of what many consider the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Narrowing the field: Innoscience reshapes the case

As the investigation progressed, Innoscience steadily reshaped the playing field.

Through discovery, Innoscience forced Infineon to withdraw two of its four asserted patents, reducing the dispute to US Patent Nos. 9,070,755 and 9,899,481 before trial. As the case narrowed, Innoscience introduced redesigned products consistent with its ongoing technology evolution—products that would later become central to the outcome of the case.

In parallel, Innoscience challenged the asserted patents directly. Through ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) of the ’481 patent at the US Patent and Trademark Office, Innoscience applied additional pressure on the validity of Infineon’s claims, ensuring that the dispute unfolded across multiple fronts.

Shifting the battleground: redesigned products take center stage

A critical moment came when the focus shifted to Innoscience’s redesigned products. Infineon sought to confine the investigation to earlier product generations, attempting to exclude Innoscience’s commercially deployed, next-generation designs from the record. That effort failed in the face of clear evidence showing that the redesigned solutions had already been finalized and incorporated into Innoscience’s commercial product line.

The consequences are decisive. In its Initial Determination issued in December 2025, the Administrative Law Judge evaluated both legacy and redesigned products, finding that Innoscience’s redesigned devices do not infringe the asserted claims of the ’481 patent. The ALJ also found no violation with respect to the ’755 patent.

Collapsing the case: Innoscience closes off exclusion

The ITC’s Final Determination confirmed the direction of travel. The Commission held that Innoscience’s new, redesigned GaN power devices do not infringe Infineon’s patents and may continue to be imported and sold in the United States without restriction.

The remaining elements of Infineon’s case were further reduced. The Commission invalidated four additional claims of the ’481 patent, significantly narrowing its scope. What remained applied only to discontinued legacy products—leaving any exclusion or cease-and-desist orders without practical effect.

Meanwhile, Infineon’s assertions under the ’755 patent fell away entirely. The Commission declined review of the no-infringement finding, and with the appeal deadline expired, that determination became final.

Conclusion: a legal victory and a business victory

At the outset, the case posed a familiar risk: whether a competitor could use the ITC to block market access. Innoscience did more than defeat that risk—it eliminated it at its source.

By pursuing redesigns during the investigation and securing ITC rulings on those designs, Innoscience ensured that its commercially relevant products were not just outside the dispute, but affirmatively cleared within it. By the time the Commission ruled, Innoscience had already moved forward—its next-generation products in market, aligned with its technology roadmap, and validated by the very proceeding intended to stop them.

This was not just a litigation victory. It was a strategic one. By aligning product development with litigation strategy, Innoscience turned a potential market blockade into a platform for clearance—emerging not only unscathed, but ahead.

← Back to News