Insta360 Infringed on GoPro’s Patents, US Trade Commission Judge Finds
Today, a United States Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the International Trade Commission issued an “Initial Determination” that found Insta360 violated federal law by importing and selling products in the US that infringed on GoPro’s intellectual property.
Update 7/11: GoPro’s initial media brief claimed the ITC had found Insta360 to have infringed on two patents. Insta360, which provided the full notice of issuance for PetaPixel’s review (which GoPro did not), points out that this is not the case. Five of the six patents asserted by GoPro were either not infringed or ruled invalid and this includes the ’894 and ’840 patents related to HyperSmooth stabilization. The only patent where infringement was found is a design patent.
The original article is below and Insta360’s full response to the patent infringement situation can be read here.
GoPro filed a complaint to the ITC last May in which it alleged Insta360 violated multiple patents. Reuters reported that GoPro’s complaint claimed that Insta360’s products infringed on GoPro’s patents for the “novel and proprietary SuperView, virtual lens, HyperSmooth, and Horizon Leveling technology” used in its HERO and MAX lines. The complaint requested that the ITC institute an investigation and, if it found violations, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders to Insta360.
Today, the ALJ announced that after its investigation, it found that China-based (and now publicly traded) Insta360 infringed on two patents: the design of its Hero cameras and its HyperSmooth video stabilization technology. The first claim is likely directly related to Insta360’s line of Ace Pro action cameras which, as seen above, do bear a striking resemblance to the well-known (and what GoPro describes as “iconic”) design of its mainline Hero camera series.
This is just the Initial Determination and the ITC is expected to issue its Final Determination on all of GoPro’s infringement claims by November 10, 2025. It is PetaPixel‘s understanding, after consulting an expert, that this is just the first of likely many steps. After the Final Determination, which is the last of the administrative procedures and must happen before other courts get involved, either party can appeal that finding. That appeal can move through multiple court levels and could, in theory, take years to come to a final decision.
Appeals from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) are taken to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6) grants the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over final decisions of the ITC. Generally, any party adversely affected by a final determination of the ITC can file an appeal within 60 days after the decision becomes final.
The Final Determination will likely involve more than just the one Judge that made this Initial Determination, so it is possible the other patents GoPro alleged were violated — SuperView, virtual lens, and Horizon Leveling technology — would be added, although it is just as possible that the full panel of judges disagrees with the Initial Determination. That remains to be seen.
“This litigation process has strengthened GoPro’s intellectual property portfolio and underscores GoPro’s history of category-defining innovation, which has resulted in more than 1,500 US patents,” GoPro says.
“GoPro welcomes fair competition as it drives us to innovate, but we will litigate to protect our IP when we believe it is being infringed,” Nicholas Woodman, GoPro’s founder and CEO, says. “We have been an American innovator and market leader for twenty-three years, and we will not sit idle while we believe others unjustly take advantage of our hard work, investment and innovation.”
It is important to note that an Initial Determination is not binding until it is made final. The ALJ of the ITC will continue to review the case and finalize those findings (which may or may not be overturned or changed) as well as determine what remedies will be undertaken. This Initial Determination doesn’t force Insta360 to pull its products from the market, for example. If it holds up and the court determines the infringing products cannot be sold, it would have wide-reaching effects on Insta360’s product line.
While the design infringement would only affect its Ace Pro series, the HyperSmooth video stabilization infringement likely points to Insta360’s FlowState digital stabilization technology, which is found across the company’s product line. If that technology violated its patents, Insta360 may be forced to remove it from all products or remove those products from sale.
Image credits: Header image features images via GoPro and Insta360
Source link
