EPC sues Innoscience to protect emerging GaN technology patents

These patents cover core aspects of the design and manufacturing process of EPC’s proprietary enhancement-mode gallium nitride power semiconductor devices. These patents encompass innovations that enabled GaN-based power devices to mature from a research project to a mass-producible high-volume alternative to silicon-based transistors and integrated circuits with GaN devices having higher efficiency, smaller size, and lower cost.

The complaint recounts how Innoscience recruited two EPC employees to serve as its Chief Technology Officer and Head of Sales and Marketing. Shortly thereafter, Innoscience introduced a suite of products supposedly identical to EPC’s, boasting virtually equal performance across key performance metrics. More recently, Innoscience has claimed that many of its products have “pin-to-pin compatibility with existing products,” including EPC’s products, in a campaign to market its suite of products to EPC’s customers.

In response to the issues raised in this announcement, Innoscience has immediately taken all legal measures to counter sue.

In a statement, the company said that EPC’s lawsuit is “seriously at odds with the facts” and that it believes “this action by EPC constitutes illegal competition tactics aimed at undermining Innoscience’s competitive advantage.”

Innoscience places great importance on the construction of its intellectual property system and has established comprehensive systems for risk management and protection of intellectual property. Since its establishment, Innoscience has filed 753 relevant patents globally, with 129 patents granted. Regarding the four allegations of intellectual property infringement raised by EPC, Innoscience has promptly conducted a thorough analysis and confirmed that there is no infringement of EPC's intellectual property rights.

Innoscience also states that the allegations of technology plagiarism, based on the job changes of a few employees, are speculative and lack factual basis. “Contrary to claims by EPC, they did not serve as Chief Technology Offer and Head of Sales and Marketing,” the company has said.

Innoscience has proactively initiated a response plan to address the investigations and lawsuits filed by EPC at the US International Trade Commission and US federal courts.