U.S. International Trade Commission Reviews Patent Case Involving GoPro and Insta360
Estimated reading time: 6–10 minutes
Background of the Case
GoPro, a camera company based in California, filed a complaint on May 6, 2024. They claimed Insta360 imported cameras and accessories into the U.S. that violated six of GoPro’s patents. These patents included five “utility” patents for different camera technologies and one design patent known as D789,435.
The ITC began an official investigation soon after the complaint. Insta360 is based in Shenzhen, China, with a U.S. branch in Irvine, California.
Changes in Claims During the Case
GoPro withdrew some of its claims during the investigation. By the end of the case, GoPro was only asserting certain claims for each of the six patents.
ALJ’s Initial Findings
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing in January 2025. On July 11, 2025, the ALJ made a decision:
- Insta360 violated Section 337 with respect to GoPro’s design patent D789,435.
- Insta360 did not violate Section 337 with respect to the five utility patents.
The ALJ also made several findings about patent infringement, invalidity, and whether GoPro’s products satisfied certain legal requirements. These included:
- Some GoPro patent claims were found invalid or not infringed.
- Some claims were satisfied for domestic industry needs.
- The design patent D’435 was found infringed and valid.
Proposed Remedies from the ALJ
If the ITC finds a violation, the ALJ recommended:
- A limited exclusion order to block certain Insta360 products from entering the U.S.
- A cease and desist order to stop Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC from certain sales, since it had significant inventory.
- A bond set at zero percent of entered value, because GoPro’s products cost less than Insta360’s.
Petitions for Review
On July 25, 2025, both GoPro and Insta360 challenged parts of the decision and asked for review. They disagreed over both the final findings and specific issues related to the design and utility patents. They filed responses to each other’s petitions on August 4, 2025.
Comments from Public and Government Officials
The ITC asked for public comments about the case on July 15, 2025. Several U.S. Representatives and the involved companies submitted opinions.
Issues Under ITC Review
The ITC will review parts of the decision involving:
- Certain limits in the ‘840 patent.
- Some language in the ‘052 patent.
- The ALJ’s finding that certain Insta360 products infringe the design patent D’435.
The ITC does not plan to review the rest of the ALJ’s findings.
Questions and Next Steps
The ITC is asking the parties to explain whether Insta360 products infringe GoPro’s D’435 design patent. They especially want to know about Insta360’s rear screen, which can be in many positions.
The ITC also requests written answers on potential remedies, the public interest, and whether warranty and repair parts should be exempt from any orders. The public interest includes concerns for health, the U.S. economy, competition, U.S. production, and consumers.
If the ITC orders a remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative will have 60 days to review. During that review, products can enter the U.S. under bond.
Deadline for Written Submissions
All main written submissions must be filed by September 25, 2025. Reply submissions are due by October 2, 2025. There are page limits for all submissions, and parties must follow all ITC rules.
Contact Information
People can find documents online at https://edis.usitc.gov or get general details at https://www.usitc.gov. For filing questions, call (202) 205-2000.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 11, 2025.
Supervisory Attorney: Susan Orndoff.
Legal Disclaimer
This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
