DJI lawsuit allegations and the Gopro patent dispute: Yingstone Innovation's patent dilemma

Stock trading relies on the analysis reports from the Golden Qilin analysts, authoritative, professional, timely, and comprehensive, helping you uncover potential thematic opportunities!

(Source: Bubble Finance)

Continuous solid R&D accumulation and compliant talent movement deserve respect, but attempts to seize innovative fruits through shortcuts like “poaching + anonymous applications” will inevitably face legal scrutiny and accountability.

In the tech landscape of Nanshan District, Shenzhen, DJI is not only synonymous with the drone industry but also a gatekeeper of hard technology and a defender of rules. In March 2026, an official announcement broke the surface calm: according to Economic Reference Daily, the drone giant DJI filed a lawsuit against Insta360 in the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. The core of this lawsuit directly targets patent ownership, accusing Insta360 of poaching DJI’s core R&D personnel with high salaries, allegedly infringing on their work-related inventions.

This case once again draws public attention to the widely circulated “Coffee Shop Law”: headhunters have long been lurking in the coffee shop downstairs from DJI headquarters, attempting to lure away every engineer familiar with core algorithms with doubled salaries. This “robbery-style” demand for talent reflects a harsh truth in the smart imaging device industry—technological sovereignty is survival sovereignty.

However, as a rising star in the industry, Insta360, having enjoyed the dividends of panoramic cameras and attempting to leap into the mainstream action camera market while positioning drones as a new growth curve, is now caught in a web of patent litigation woven by DJI and GoPro.

From domestic “fruit-picking” accusations against DJI to the overseas “Rashomon” of the GoPro “337 investigation,” this legal storm has long transcended mere legal battles, becoming an ultimate test and interrogation of Insta360’s technological strength, growth logic, and long-term values.

I. From Coffee Shop to Court: A “Fruit-Picking” Accusation About the Origin of Innovation

The reason headhunters are lying in wait outside DJI’s building is that DJI has built an almost absolute defense system in key areas such as obstacle avoidance algorithms, gimbal stabilization, and image transmission systems. For imaging device companies, the flow of talent determines the thickness of patents and the source of innovation.

DJI’s series of lawsuits target Insta360 for allegedly using systematic methods to plunder its long-term R&D achievements.

1. Core Accusation: Hidden Inventors and “Internal and External Distinction” in Patent Applications

According to lawsuit materials and public reports, DJI’s lawsuit involves six patents covering core areas such as drone flight control, structural design, and image processing. The “first inventor” or core inventors of these patents were all previously employed in core R&D positions at DJI and deeply involved in the technical development of key projects.

More striking and widely questioned is the operation of “inconsistent application documents for the same family of patents both domestically and internationally.” In its domestic application documents, Insta360 deliberately requested “not to disclose the names of the inventors,” concealing the identities of former DJI employees; however, in the international patent (PCT) application for the same technology, the actual names of the R&D personnel were truthfully listed.

This “internal and external distinction” operation has been strongly criticized as deliberately concealing the true source of patent ownership, intending to evade the provisions of the Patent Law regarding work-related inventions, and is suspected of maliciously infringing on DJI’s technological achievements.

2. The “Temporal Paradox” of Technological Sources

This lawsuit reveals a clear “temporal paradox” and forms a precise analogy with the Supreme Court’s final decision in the “WM Motor infringement of Geely’s trade secrets case.” Since 2006, DJI has been deeply engaged in the drone field for nearly twenty years, building a barrier of over ten thousand patents, while Insta360 only announced its entry into the drone sector in 2020.

However, between 2020 and 2022, as several core R&D personnel from DJI left to join Insta360, the latter suddenly “broke through” and applied for multiple core patents in high-barrier fields like drone flight control and transmission, despite having no public technical accumulation. This phenomenon of “immediate output after leaving, seamless connection” became a key focus of this patent dispute.

Industry insiders have stated that in an industry with extremely high technical barriers and lengthy R&D cycles, a new entrant claiming to achieve results in just a few years that took industry giants nearly twenty years to attain “is inherently against industry norms.”

This aligns closely with the infringement model in the WM Motor case: in 2016, WM Motor poached nearly 40 core technical personnel from Geely, subsequently utilizing the technical secrets brought by them to apply for patents in 2018, and launched products in just 28 months (far below the industry cycle of 4-5 years) despite having no technical accumulation. In June 2024, the Supreme People’s Court ultimately characterized this as “organized and planned large-scale poaching of technical talent and resources through improper means resulting in the infringement of trade secrets” and established the judgment rule of “poaching core personnel + rapid mass production → presumption of infringement of trade secrets,” ordering WM Motor to compensate Geely 643 million yuan.

Currently, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court has formally accepted this case. Regardless of the outcome, this lawsuit has sent a clear signal to the industry: continuous solid R&D accumulation and compliant talent movement deserve respect, but attempts to seize innovative fruits through “poaching + anonymous applications” will inevitably face legal scrutiny and accountability.

II. “Patent Flaws” During IPO and Globalization “Rashomon”

If DJI’s lawsuit is a “defensive battle” aimed directly at the source of innovation domestically, then the patent vulnerabilities exposed by Insta360 during its IPO and global expansion reveal another side of its frequent patent issues.

1. Structural Defects in Patents and History of Multiple Invention Patent Infringements

The path to listing for Insta360 (688775.SH) has always been accompanied by repeated inquiries from regulators regarding the “gold content” of its technology. As of the end of 2024, it disclosed 900 authorized patents both domestically and internationally, but only 189 of these were high-value invention patents. The mid-2025 report showed a cumulative patent count of 1,032, with 222 invention patents, still only about 21.5%. The rest were mostly utility models and design patents.

In the algorithm-driven smart imaging industry, invention patents (involving algorithms, communication protocols, and chip fundamentals) are the real moat and spear for offense, while Insta360’s patents are primarily focused on design patents and utility models, mainly protecting “appearance” and “simple structures,” which belong to application-level optimizations, have weaker legal effectiveness, and are easily circumvented or bypassed.

With invention patents accounting for less than 21%, facing a competitor like DJI with over ten thousand core invention patents, the defensive position is extremely weak. This explains why, when responding to GoPro’s “337 investigation,” Insta360’s main strategies were to “modify appearance to circumvent design patents” or “apply for the invalidation of the opponent’s patents,” lacking sufficient core invention patents for cross-licensing or countering.

2. The Global Litigation Quagmire and “Rashomon” Style Victories

Insta360’s globalization process is closely intertwined with patent litigation. As early as its IPO period, it was embroiled as a defendant in overseas invention patent disputes with Maurizio Sole Festa, Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., and others.

The biggest crisis came in March 2024 (during its crucial IPO period) when GoPro, a giant in action cameras, initiated a “337 investigation” in the U.S. If this investigation rules infringement, it could lead to the prohibition of relevant products from entering the U.S. market, posing a fatal threat to Insta360, which derives over 70% of its revenue from overseas.

The investigation concluded in February 2026, but it played out like a “Rashomon.”

GoPro released a statement asserting that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) supported its claims regarding design patents and issued a limited exclusion order, declaring victory;

Insta360 also announced that five out of six involved invention patents were ruled non-infringing or invalid, with only one design patent related to a discontinued old product, likewise claiming victory;

This “each telling their own story” situation left investors bewildered and raised questions.

Although Insta360 avoided the worst outcome, it is an undeniable fact that its product designs had fallen within the patent protection range of its competitors, exposing vulnerabilities and risks in its global intellectual property layout. The company has never clarified the historical revenue share of the involved old products, leaving the true cost of this “bitter victory” a mystery.

3. “Patent Open Source” Strategy: A Sentimental Game or a Forced Surrender?

As the “337 investigation” storm subsides, the founder of Insta360 unexpectedly announced that it would not actively pursue accountability for the “good faith use” of some of its core action camera patents by peers, describing this as an “open source” move to promote industry innovation.

This strategy has sparked significant controversy within the industry. A sharp interpretation suggests that this is typically a public relations strategy from the weaker side of patent strength.

Because true technology leaders (like Qualcomm, Huawei) can thrive on patent fees, only when patents are insufficient to build a moat or deter competitors, they choose “open source” to attract allies and attempt to define standards. Moreover, this is a double-edged sword. If peers quickly launch competitive products using your open-source patents, and you cannot achieve a differentiated strike through core invention patents, the company will fall into a long-term price war quagmire.

III. Beneath the Halo: Imbalanced Operations and Weak Foundations

Behind multiple litigation disputes lies deeper imbalances and anxieties in Insta360’s operations, as its narrative of high growth faces severe tests.

1. Aggressive “price-for-volume” Strategy and Soaring Inventory Impairment

Insta360’s growth trajectory presents a concerning contradiction: on one hand, its revenue growth rate has consistently remained above 50% year-on-year, while on the other, inventory impairment losses have surged year after year.

Data shows that its inventory impairment losses jumped from approximately -15.16 million yuan in 2022 to -34.74 million yuan in 2024. Notably, the asset impairment loss for just the first half of 2025 (-32.84 million yuan) is already close to the total for 2024.

This divergence between “high revenue growth” and “soaring inventory impairment” suggests that the company may heavily rely on aggressive discount promotions to drive revenue growth and market share.

In the absence of a strong technological moat, lacking substantial patent barriers and differentiated advantages, old product iterations are hindered, and due to the lack of unique technological vitality, they rapidly depreciate, necessitating significant impairments for clearance. Additionally, the company’s preliminary earnings report for 2025 shows increased revenue without profit, reflecting this model directly.

2. Price Cuts Exceeding Peers

Insta360’s consumer-level smart imaging device products mainly include the ONE X series, Ace series, GO series, ONE R series, Sphere, Link series, Flow series, Nano series, and more.

In the past, panoramic cameras accounted for 60%-70% of Insta360’s total revenue. By the end of 2023, the company launched the Ace Pro and Ace Pro 2 series, marking a key step in its leap from the niche market (panoramic) to the mainstream market (traditional action).

As the fastest-growing product line for Insta360 in recent years, it now faces direct competition from DJI’s Action series and GoPro.

From the perspective of product price cuts, this particular product from Insta360 has experienced the most significant reduction.

Furthermore, in terms of product strategy, DJI focuses on cost-performance ratio, typically pricing its products 10%-15% lower than Insta360 and GoPro, making it the most balanced choice among the three. Once price competition becomes intense, Insta360, which lacks substantial economies of scale in revenue and supply chain management, will also lack pricing advantages.

3. Multi-Front Battles and Dimensional Attacks from Giants

Currently, Insta360’s business lines are facing unprecedented multi-front pressure:

Domestically, it must deal with DJI’s litigation concerning the ownership of innovation source patents, which directly challenges its narrative foundation of technological autonomy and the commercialization process of related products;

Overseas, it still faces uncertainty regarding subsequent appeals from GoPro’s “337 investigation” and continues to deal with global patent risks;

In the action camera market, DJI still holds a 55% share in the global market, nearly double Insta360’s 30% market share, creating an indisputable gap in leadership.

In the handheld gimbal camera sector, it faces DJI’s absolute advantage with the OSMO Pocket series while simultaneously contending with smartphone giants like Vivo, OPPO, and Honor, who are leveraging their advantages in imaging chips, algorithms, and ecosystems to enter the field, bringing about new dimensional attacks.

Due to the slowing growth rate and profit pressure in its core action camera business, Insta360 has placed its future bets on the larger market space of drones, but it similarly faces pressure from DJI’s overwhelming market share (occupying 70%-80% of the global consumer drone market, with some segments exceeding 90%).

Moreover, aside from the aforementioned accusations of infringing on work-related inventions leading to source lawsuits, if they lose, related patents may be declared invalid or ownership changed, potentially rendering prior R&D investments futile and severely restricting the product planning and commercialization process of the entire drone business.

The industry comparison assessment in March 2026 (such as the “NEW CAMERA” comparison of DJI’s Avata series and Insta360’s Antigravity A1) sharply reveals this generational gap.

The assessment pointed out that while the Insta360 A1 possesses advantages in certain aspects, it is comprehensively inferior in key metrics related to flight experience and safety, such as transmission distance, maximum flight speed, and wind resistance. For instance, DJI’s products equipped with OcuSync transmission technology can achieve stable transmission over distances exceeding 10 kilometers, while the Insta360 A1’s nominal value under ideal conditions is about half of that, with significant attenuation in complex environments;

In terms of endurance, the real measured endurance of the Insta360 A1 is about 15-24 minutes and shows unstable performance in low-temperature environments, while DJI, through its self-developed power system and power management, can provide longer and more reliable flight times. This reflects the significant gap in underlying hardware and system integration capabilities between the two in areas such as RF communication, power systems, and power consumption control.

Additionally, DJI has built a coherent user experience moat through its vast hardware ecosystem (remote controllers, flying glasses, batteries, etc.), which is a barrier that newcomers find difficult to overcome in the short term.

Conclusion

Whether mired in litigation Rashomon or engaging in aggressive patent open-sourcing, the risks behind Insta360’s financial data are glaringly obvious: any shortcut that bypasses original R&D will ultimately face a dual reckoning from technology and market.

DJI’s lawsuit, in essence, has ignited a battle for the defense of innovation ethics. For Insta360, it faces not only a series of legal battles but also a trust battle regarding its technological fundamentals, business integrity, and growth model. Patent disputes are never incidental to operations; rather, they are a touchstone for assessing the foundational quality of a technology company.

The capital market, consumers, and the entire industry are waiting for Insta360 to provide a final answer regarding innovation and integrity.