GoPro, Inc. v. Insta360 (Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360)

In the high-stakes world of action and 360-degree cameras, GoPro, Inc., a prominent American technology company known for its rugged action cameras, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against its competitor, Insta360 (Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC), a Chinese camera and imaging technology company specializing in action and 360-degree cameras. GoPro, as the complainant and an operating company, accused Insta360, also an operating company, of infringing its intellectual property through the importation and sale of certain Insta360 action and 360-degree cameras and camera systems, including models such as the Insta360 X5, Ace Pro 2, and X4.

The litigation, formally known as "Certain Cameras, Camera Systems, and Accessories used Therewith," Investigation No. 337-TA-1400, was filed with the International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington, D.C. The ITC is a significant venue for patent infringement disputes due to its expedited proceedings, its inability to award monetary damages but its power to issue exclusion orders (import bans) against infringing products, and the presence of judges experienced in complex technical matters, rather than juries. GoPro initially asserted infringement of five utility patents, including a patent referred to as the "'052 patent" related to camera distortion, and one design patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D789,435. A notable discrepancy exists regarding the specific patent US9550052. While the case metadata explicitly names US9550052 as a patent at issue, a general search for this patent number reveals it pertains to a "console system for the treatment of skin". However, ITC documents for this investigation clearly refer to a "'052 patent" in the context of GoPro's camera technology, specifically relating to "distortion correction". For the purposes of this case summary, the "052 patent" refers to the one asserted by GoPro in connection with camera technology.

This case is particularly notable as it represents a significant legal battle between two of the leading manufacturers in the action and 360-degree camera market, highlighting intense competition within the industry. Insta360, in response, also initiated inter partes review (IPR) petitions against GoPro's patents at the USPTO and filed patent litigation against GoPro in China. Ultimately, the ITC's final determination found no violation of Section 337 regarding the utility patents asserted by GoPro, including the '052 patent. While an Administrative Law Judge initially found infringement of GoPro's design patent (D789,435) by some legacy Insta360 Ace series camera models, the Commission later affirmed that Insta360's updated product designs did not infringe, allowing Insta360 to continue importing and selling its current product lineup in the U.S. without restriction. The outcome underscores the challenges in asserting utility patents in complex technology fields at the ITC and the importance of design patents in such disputes, demonstrating how established companies leverage intellectual property litigation against emerging competitors.

GoPro, Inc. v. Insta360 (Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360) (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1400) was an International Trade Commission investigation initiated by GoPro alleging infringement of multiple patents by Insta360's cameras and camera systems.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024)

• 2024-03-29: GoPro, Inc. filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging violations of Section 337 based on the importation and sale of certain cameras, camera systems, and accessories by Insta360. The complaint asserted claims from six U.S. patents: five utility patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,015,413; 10,529,052; 10,574,894; 10,958,840; 11,336,832) and one design patent (U.S. Design Patent No. D789,435).
• 2024-05-06: The ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1400, naming Arashi Vision Inc. d/b/a Insta360 (of Shenzhen, China) and Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360 (of Irvine, California) as respondents.
• 2024-05-06: On the same day the ITC investigation was instituted, a parallel lawsuit was initiated by GoPro in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (No. 8:24-cv-00681-HDE-JCV) concerning the same six patents.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2024-2025)

• 2024-06-03: The parallel district court lawsuit in the Central District of California was suspended (stayed) pending the conclusion of the ITC investigation.
• 2024-12-13: The parties stipulated that the importation requirement for the accused products was satisfied.
• 2025-01-21: The Commission found that GoPro satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for all six asserted patents.
• 2025-05-05: The ITC determined not to review an initial determination (Order No. 26) that extended the target date for completion of the investigation from September 8, 2025, to November 10, 2025.

3. Discovery & Trial Events (2025)

• 2025-01-13 to 2025-01-17: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Doris Johnson Hines held an evidentiary hearing in the investigation.
• 2025-07-11: The ALJ issued a Final Initial Determination (ID) finding a violation of Section 337 by Insta360 with respect to the design patent D'435. For the utility patents, the ID found infringement for claims 4 and 8 of the '832 patent and claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the '052 patent. However, it found no infringement for claims of the '894 and '840 patents.

4. Post-Trial Motions & Commission Review (2025)

• 2025-07-25: GoPro filed a petition for review of the Final ID's findings of no violation for all five utility patents, and a contingent petition for review on certain issues regarding the design patent. Insta360 also filed a petition for review challenging the finding of violation for the design patent and a contingent petition regarding four utility patents.
• 2025-09-11: The Commission determined to review in part the ALJ's Final ID.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2025)

• Insta360 initiated multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to challenge the validity of GoPro's patents.
• 2025-04-28: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of IPR2025-00017, filed by Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360 against U.S. Patent No. 10,529,052, exercising its discretion to decline institution.
• The PTAB also rejected three separate Insta360 challenges to patents covering GoPro's HyperSmooth technology, affirming the validity of multiple GoPro utility patents.

6. Final Disposition (2026)

• 2026-02-26: The U.S. International Trade Commission issued its Final Determination. The Commission reversed the ALJ's finding of infringement as to the '052 patent and found no violation of Section 337 for any of the five utility patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052.
• 2026-02-26: However, the Commission upheld the ALJ's finding of a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Design Patent No. D789,435, confirming that Insta360's action camera products infringed GoPro's design patent. The Commission also affirmed the ALJ's determination that Insta360's updated product designs fell outside the scope of the asserted design patent.
• 2026-02-26: As a remedy for the design patent infringement, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order (LEO) prohibiting the unlicensed importation by Insta360 of certain cameras and camera systems that infringe the D'435 patent, and a cease and desist order (CDO) against Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360. The LEO applies only to certain older models in Insta360's Ace series and does not impact Insta360's current product offerings.
• 2026-03-03: The investigation was terminated in its entirety following the Commission's Final Determination and issuance of remedial orders.

GoPro, Inc. was represented by counsel from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1400.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

• S. Alex Lasher
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Lasher was counsel for Complainant GoPro, Inc. in this ITC investigation.
• Sean S. Pak
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Note: Pak was counsel for Complainant GoPro, Inc. in this ITC investigation.
• Patrick T. Schmidt
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Schmidt was counsel for Complainant GoPro, Inc. in this ITC investigation.
• Nathan Hamstra
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, Illinois
  • Note: Hamstra was counsel for Complainant GoPro, Inc. in this ITC investigation.
• Jason C. Williams
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, New York
  • Note: Williams was counsel for Complainant GoPro, Inc. in this ITC investigation.

While other firms like Alston & Bird and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP have represented GoPro in other patent litigation matters, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan was specifically identified as representing GoPro in the 337-TA-1400 ITC investigation.

Insta360 (Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360) was represented by counsel from Morrison & Foerster LLP (MoFo) in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1400. The firm successfully defended Insta360, securing a no-violation finding on all five asserted utility patents and affirming that Insta360's updated models fell outside the scope of the design patent at issue for current products.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

• Lily Li
  • Role: Partner, Co-lead counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, California
  • Note: Co-led the trial team that secured a complete defense victory for Insta360 in this high-stakes Section 337 investigation, specializing in ITC litigation and trials.
• Mark L. Whitaker
  • Role: Partner, Co-lead counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Co-led the trial team for Insta360, contributing to the successful outcome in this ITC investigation.
• Richard S.J. Hung
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Note: Key team member in the successful defense of Insta360 against GoPro's patent infringement allegations.
• Mary Prendergast
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: A key team member for Insta360's defense in the ITC investigation.
• Alex S.F. Yap
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Played a significant role in Insta360's legal team.
• Ryan J. Malloy
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Contributed as a key team member to Insta360's defense.
• Jenna H. Seleznick (Spoont)
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Identified as part of the legal team representing Insta360.
• Evelyn Li-Jin Chang
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, California
  • Note: Identified as part of the legal team for Insta360.
• Stella Mao
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, California
  • Note: Contributed to the defense team for Insta360.
• Nishi A. Tavernier
  • Role: (Role not specified, likely associate)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, New York
  • Note: Listed as counsel for the respondents.
• Maryrose F. McLaughlin
  • Role: (Role not specified)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Listed as counsel for the respondents.
• Kristen Lai
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (location not specified in snippet)
  • Note: Identified as part of the Morrison Foerster team for Insta360.
• Sam C. Meyer
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (location not specified in snippet)
  • Note: Identified as part of the Morrison Foerster team for Insta360.
• Jean Nguyen, Ph.D.
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (location not specified in snippet)
  • Note: Identified as Of Counsel for Insta360's legal team.
• Bryan Blumenkopf
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (location not specified in snippet)
  • Note: Identified as Of Counsel for Insta360's legal team.
• Anna Yuan
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (location not specified in snippet)
  • Note: Identified as Of Counsel for Insta360's legal team.
• Tony C. Kwok
  • Role: Sr Patent Agent
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (location not specified in snippet)
  • Note: Identified as a Senior Patent Agent on Insta360's legal team.