Doubtful. Innosilicon was the one who actually engineered the chip.

What is actually Innosilicon's current position on this matter is this, and I quote from their web :
"Innosilicon Announce its 28nm Bitcoin Mining IP core in Production
Innosilicon is proudly announcing that BitMine AG, a leading bitcoin mining system supplier, has licensed its ultra low power Hash IP Core for production at GF 28nm HPP process. This IP is designed from scratch using patent pending, customized VLSI computational Marco cells developed to squeeze the best possible power efficiency in 28nm. Its ultra high power efficiency and thermal reliability allows BitMine AG to pack just the right amount of innovative hash horse power inside a A1 CoinCraft ASIC. The availability of this 28nm hardened IP core instantly raised the bar in a crowded 28nm bitcoin mining ASIC field."

This might mean, that :

a) Bitmine.ch has patented (patent pending), their HPP proces (sublicenced from GF and forked), based on their Bitcoin Mining IP core
b) Innosilicon has given permission to Bitmine.ch to use their ultra-low-power Hash IP core for 28 nm DIE for chips produced by Innosilicon for Bitmine, and probably given only to Bitmine and nobody else.
c) Who did customized VLSI computational Marco cell (power train in 28 nm) - Synapse, Verisilicon, Innosilicon, Bitmine or GlobalFoundries is not known to me at this point. Also not known if this customized VLSI method is patented by someone.

Even though somebody could obtain licence from Innosilicon for power layer, other layers are still not Innosilicon property, so without Bitmine's sublicence on final design, full tapeout of cloned chips is not [legally] possible.

It has nothing to do with BRANDNAME - "COINCRAFT A1" as s BRAND, but with TOPOGRAPHIC DESIGN OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, which is SEPARATE LEVEL OF INTELECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION FROM BRAND(NAME) PROTECTION, patent pending according to Madrid Convention of the World Intelectual property organisation. Patents are accesible from WIPO portal, and they are many, and non of which are the property JingTian.

Authorised distributors of bitmine tech: http://bitmine.ch/?page_id=5204 - unless the chips were sourced from one of these guys or bitmine themselves it's corporate theft.

Bitmine have already made themselves quite clear on the issue and until they've made a statement retracting the previous statement it's much more likely the the statement was deleted/moderated rather than retracted. Furthermore, we have yet to hear anything from Innosilicon to suggest that they have obtained the rights from bitmine to produce these chips for sale.

Certainly it's plausible Innosillion also have the rights to sell the chip, but it is also certainly plausible Innosilicon does not have the rights to sell the chip. In the absence of an official statement from Innosilicon contradicting the official statement from bitmine and the presence of the well known culture of rampant IP theft that goes on in China, on the balance of probabilities, it is much more likely the Chinese machines using 28nm A1 chips from Innosilicon are the product of stolen property and therefore illegal to receive and/or possess in most common law jurisdictions.

Customers have the right to purchase goods that are 100% legitimately manufactured. I would not want to buy a car that has been assembled from stolen parts.