DJI Sues Insta360: Patent Ownership Dispute Case Accepted, Multiple Former R&D Staff Members Allegedly Involved

After engaging in direct confrontation by entering each other’s territories and competing in core categories, the battle between the two Shenzhen hardware innovation companies has escalated again.

Sources close to the case reveal that DJI (DJI Innovations) has recently filed a lawsuit against Insta360 (Yingshi Innovation) at the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province.

DJI claims that several former core R&D personnel of DJI participated in six patent applications filed by Yingshi Innovation, and there are disputes over the ownership of these patents. The court has accepted the case and officially filed it, marking DJI’s first patent ownership dispute filed domestically.

This indicates that, besides pushing into each other’s advantageous markets, DJI and Yingshi Innovation are also trying to safeguard their existing markets.

Former DJI employees become “shadow” inventors of Yingshi’s patents

According to insiders familiar with the case, the dispute centers on the fact that the patents in question were filed by multiple employees who left DJI within a year of their departure. These patents mainly focus on core technologies that DJI has long cultivated, such as drone flight control, structural design, and image processing.

Industry insiders further reveal that among the six disputed patents, two are particularly critical, involving drone flight control and drone structural design:

In the Chinese patent application documents submitted by Yingshi, some inventors are listed as “requesting non-disclosure of names.” However, in the corresponding international patent application (PCT), due to mandatory disclosure regulations, the applicant must clearly specify the true names of the inventors. Comparing the information from both documents, DJI found that the inventors listed in the domestic and international applications are clearly identified as former DJI R&D personnel.

Image/Visual China

It is understood that these former employees participated deeply in key drone projects during their tenure at DJI, directly engaging with and mastering core technologies including flight control, structural design, and image processing.

Additionally, publicly available information shows that shortly after leaving DJI and joining Yingshi, these employees filed multiple patent applications in highly overlapping technical fields. As of now, Yingshi has a total of 51 patent applications requesting non-disclosure of inventors’ names. These patents cover not only drone technology but also a wide range of products such as handheld imaging devices.

DJI believes that these inventions are closely related to the work tasks these employees undertook at DJI and constitute work-related inventions. The patents mainly involve DJI’s long-standing core technologies in drone flight control, structural design, and image processing. According to the Patent Law, the patent application rights should legally belong to DJI.

A patent dispute and a boundary exploration in business competition

According to Article 6 of China’s Patent Law, inventions or creations completed during the execution of tasks for a unit or mainly utilizing the unit’s material and technical conditions are considered work-related inventions. The patent application rights and patent rights belong to that unit. This system aims to protect companies’ long-term R&D investments.

However, in practice, when core R&D personnel move with “technical memories” from their original units, clearly defining the boundary between “personal experience” and “original unit’s work achievements” has always been a challenge in intellectual property judicial practice. Similar disputes and legal cases have repeatedly played out in the public eye.

For example, in 2018, Geely discovered that nearly 40 senior management and technical personnel had “jumped ship” to WM Motor and related companies between 2016 and 2018, allegedly using technical data from their former employer to apply for 12 utility model patents, leading to a lawsuit against WM Motor.

In 2019, the leading speaker industry company Goertek sued China’s first MEMS company, Maxin (Mingxin), because employee Tang Mouming, who left less than a year earlier, participated in multiple patent applications after joining Mingxin, with technical fields overlapping with his previous work at Goertek.

Both lawsuits resulted in victories for the plaintiffs, but patent disputes are complex and time-consuming.

An industry observer noted, “Patents are like fire for geniuses, poured with the oil of profit.” Some companies rapidly achieve breakthroughs or patent layouts in specific technical fields by recruiting competitors or core industry personnel in a very short time. The boundary between talent introduction and technology transfer warrants deep reflection.

Currently, DJI has officially filed a lawsuit requesting the court to confirm that the patent application rights or patent rights involved should belong to DJI. The case has entered the judicial process, with the specific court hearing date to be determined. The outcome of this lawsuit may serve as an important judicial reference for defining intellectual property protection amid talent mobility.

On July 23, 2025, Yingshi Innovation announced its strategic plan to enter the drone market; at the end of that month, DJI launched its first panoramic camera product; both companies have also adopted strategies such as price subsidies and discounts to attract consumers.

DJI Osmo Pocket 3, Image/Visual China

Since then, the direct competition between the two companies has become a prominent storyline in the domestic consumer hardware market. However, against this backdrop, the lawsuit between DJI and Yingshi again reminds the entire market: innovation can surge wildly, but actions must not distort; competition among different business entities is not disorderly but should be confined within legal boundaries.