On June 12, 2026, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of China upheld a preliminary injunction barring Infineon Technologies from selling, offering to sell, or importing its gallium nitride (GaN) products in China. The case is Innoscience v. Infineon, and it is the third SPC preliminary injunction review in the first half of 2026 — matching the entire 2024 annual total. For any foreign company that sells technology products in China, the ruling rewrites a long-held assumption: that Chinese courts do not grant patent injunctions against foreign defendants. They just did.

The patents were obtained through CNIPA's pre-examination fast track. Innoscience's two GaN patents — ZL202311774650.7 (a GaN power device and fabrication method) and ZL202211387983.X (a nitride-based semiconductor device) — were granted in three months and eleven months respectively through the China National Intellectual Property Administration's (CNIPA) accelerated examination channel. This is the first time pre-examination patents have survived validity challenges and secured PI enforcement in a major infringement suit. Companies that have treated CNIPA fast-track patents as procedurally weak should reconsider.

Infineon challenged both patents at CNIPA and lost. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court dismissed Infineon's invalidity challenges in full. The Chinese PI system does not require a final validity determination. It requires a preliminary assessment that the patent is "stable." Courts are increasingly willing to find that threshold met once a patent survives an initial challenge.

The SPC upheld the PI on review. Under rules effective November 1, 2023, all appeals against local court PIs are now routed to the SPC Intellectual Property Tribunal in Beijing — the same body that handles second-instance patent appeals nationally. Infineon's review petition, docketed as (2026) SPC IP Civil Review No. 3, was rejected. The PI stands. Infineon's GaN products cannot be sold or imported in China.

Germany: In June 2024, the Munich Regional Court granted Infineon a PI against Innoscience, barring certain GaN product sales in Germany.

United States: Infineon filed a Section 337 complaint at the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1414. In May 2026, the full ITC affirmed its initial determination: Innoscience infringed one Infineon GaN patent, but the Commission explicitly confirmed that Innoscience's current product portfolio does not infringe and can continue to be imported and sold in the United States.

China: The SPC PI is now the most commercially potent remedy either side has secured. Unlike the ITC ruling, which carved out Innoscience's current products, the China PI is a blanket prohibition on Infineon's GaN portfolio. Infineon held 13.9% of China's automotive electronics market in 2024. The global GaN market is projected to reach USD 3 billion by 2030, growing at 44% annually (Infineon's own February 2026 forecast), with China as the primary demand driver. The commercial asymmetry is hard to overstate.

China's behavior preservation system has existed since 2001, when it was introduced as part of WTO accession commitments. Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law (2017 amendment) provides the statutory basis. The SPC issued a supporting judicial interpretation in 2018. But for two decades, the mechanism was decentralized: each local court handled PI decisions and defendant appeals internally. The result was inconsistency, regional variation, and effectively zero published precedent.

In October 2023, the SPC centralized PI review to its Intellectual Property Tribunal. Defendants can no longer seek review from the same court that issued the PI. They must go to Beijing. The SPC published two decisions in 2024: (2024) SPC IP Civil Review No. 1 (Dreame Technology v. Roborock, PI revoked) and (2024) SPC IP Civil Review No. 3 (Ze Microelectronics v. Core Semiconductor, PI upheld — the first PI the SPC ever affirmed).

In the first half of 2026, the SPC has already handled at least three PI reviews. That is a meaningful acceleration from a system that previously produced essentially no visible output. The absolute numbers remain tiny compared to German or Unified Patent Court (UPC) PI practice. Chinese courts hear tens of thousands of patent cases annually. Three PIs in six months is not a flood. But the direction of travel is unmistakable.

Audit competitor patent portfolios in China against your product lines. If a Chinese competitor holds CNIPA pre-examination patents in a technology area where your company has significant China revenue, assume those patents can be weaponized. The compressed grant timeline means a competitor can obtain enforceable rights before you finish a freedom-to-operate review.

Do not bank on invalidity challenges to block a PI. Infineon challenged both patents and lost. The Beijing IP Court upheld both. The SPC's PI standard requires only a preliminary stability assessment — not final validity. If your invalidity petition fails at first instance, a PI can issue while your appeal is pending. The review process does not suspend the injunction.

Reassess China as a litigation venue. For years, foreign patent holders treated China as a damages jurisdiction rather than a forum for injunctive relief. That assessment needs updating. The Infineon PI, combined with the SPC's new punitive damages interpretation (Judicial Interpretation No. 7, effective May 1, 2026, permitting up to five times damages for repeat infringers), makes China a jurisdiction where losing a patent case has immediate commercial consequences.

Track SPC PI review decisions. Each published decision carries outsized signaling value given the small sample size. Monitor case numbers, patent types, and the SPC's reasoning on validity, urgency, and irreparable harm. The SPC is building a body of PI law in real time, and the rules are being written through these decisions.

Build multi-jurisdictional patent strategy into your IP function. The Innoscience-Infineon dispute is not a one-off. It is the template. Chinese companies with international ambitions are filing patents through CNIPA's fast track, enforcing them at home, and simultaneously defending against enforcement actions abroad. Companies that treat China IP strategy and global IP strategy as separate workstreams will be caught flat-footed.

For foreign companies, the strategic takeaway is straightforward. China is no longer a jurisdiction where you can litigate patent disputes slowly while business continues as usual. A competitor with valid Chinese patents, a competent litigation team, and a willingness to seek interim relief can disrupt your China operations within months. The Infineon PI will almost certainly drive the parties toward a global settlement — and that, too, is the point. Chinese PI relief functions as a negotiation lever as much as a standalone remedy.

If you hold Chinese patents: enforce them. If your competitor holds them: your China revenue is at risk. Either way, the old assumptions no longer apply.

For strategic advice on China patent enforcement, cross-border IP litigation, or portfolio risk assessment, contact BORSAM IP. We provide foreign companies with actionable intelligence on China's evolving IP enforcement landscape.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Patent laws and enforcement practices vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. Companies should consult qualified IP counsel regarding specific patent disputes, enforcement strategies, and compliance obligations. The case summaries herein are based on publicly available information as of June 2026 and may not reflect subsequent developments. BORSAM IP assumes no liability for actions taken based on this content.