GaN patent battles are reshaping the supply chain: Infineon excludes Innoscience at the U.S. ITC, while Wolfspeed sues Navitas

The race for GaN leadership is also being fought in court

The battle for leadership in GaN power semiconductors is no longer decided only by product performance or manufacturing scale. It is also being decided in patent courts. In 2026, Infineon excluded Innoscience GaN products from the market through the U.S. International Trade Commission, while Wolfspeed sued Navitas for patent infringement. Patent fights are not abstract IP disputes. They are supply risks that determine which suppliers can disappear from a market. For companies considering GaN adoption, litigation outcomes can change the assumptions behind supplier selection.

Infineon vs. Innoscience: exclusion from the U.S. market

Infineon has again prevailed against Innoscience in a GaN patent infringement dispute. In Germany, the Munich court issued an order prohibiting Innoscience from importing, selling, and marketing GaN products. The GaN patent dispute between the two companies has already involved multiple cases, and Infineon has framed Innoscience as a Chinese company that used GaN patents without authorization.

The decisive venue was the United States. The U.S. ITC finalized an import and sales ban against Innoscience GaN products in July 2026. The ITC's final determination was dated May 7, 2026, and took effect after completion of the presidential review period. As a result, Infineon's GaN patents exclude Innoscience's China-made power semiconductors from the U.S. market. This is the first large case in which European IP has shut Asian products out of a market, showing that patents can become an access barrier even more forceful than tariffs.

Update: Munich court rules for Infineon again (July 3, 2026)

The Infineon-Innoscience GaN patent dispute has continued in Europe even after the U.S. ITC decision. The Munich Regional Court issued a ruling in Infineon's favor again, dated July 3, 2026. Under the ruling, Innoscience is barred from importing, selling, and marketing GaN products within the EU. The two companies' GaN patent dispute already spans multiple cases, and this marks "another" win for Infineon. With import and sales bans now stacking up in both the U.S. and Europe, Innoscience's GaN products face an increasingly narrow path into major markets.

Wolfspeed vs. Navitas: patent fights within GaN players

Patent battles are also spreading among GaN players. Wolfspeed sued Navitas Semiconductor for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware. Navitas is preparing to contest the case and says it holds more than 300 issued and pending patents. Its technologies include GeneSiC, high-voltage SiC devices using trench-assisted planar technology, and GaNFast IC, which integrates GaN power, drive, control, sensing, and protection on one chip. The merits of the lawsuit remain to be tested, but the case shows that the fight for GaN/SiC leadership has moved into court and that patent risk affects both enterprise value and supply.

Update: Navitas vs. Renesas — Navitas is now the plaintiff (August 10, 2026)

Navitas, which had been the party sued by Wolfspeed, has now turned plaintiff itself. On August 10, 2026, Navitas sued Renesas Electronics for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. It alleges that Renesas' major GaN product lines, including SuperGaN, infringe Navitas' GaN patents.

The claims are specific. The patents Navitas asserts are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,929,079; 11,545,838; 11,770,010; and 11,862,996 — all relating to Navitas' GaN technology. Navitas holds a portfolio of more than 300 patents issued or pending behind the action. Navitas, the "defendant" in its dispute with Wolfspeed, is the "plaintiff" against Renesas — showing that the patent war among GaN players is spreading in multiple directions, not just a two-party fight. For buyers, the fact that Renesas' main GaN product (SuperGaN) is now in dispute means a new item to check when reviewing the litigation status of GaN suppliers.

Patent battles as procurement risk

The common point is that patents have become weapons that determine supplier market access. An ITC exclusion order can remove covered products from a specific market regardless of performance or price. A company in active litigation carries uncertainty over supply continuity even if its products are strong. For procurement teams considering GaN adoption, this means supplier litigation status must be built into selection criteria.

Business impact and checkpoints

When adopting or sourcing GaN, the checks are: 1. whether a candidate supplier is a party to patent litigation, as plaintiff or defendant; 2. whether the covered products overlap with the buyer's components and destination markets, especially the United States; and 3. whether a decision that cuts off market access, such as an ITC exclusion order, has been issued. GaN may be promising as a technology, but the outcome of patent battles can redraw the supply-chain map. Supplier IP position deserves the same attention as performance comparison.

Reference FactCards