DJI v. Insta: Patent Ownership Dispute – Intellectual Property Legal Battle Triggered by the Flow of Core Talent

Recently, the commercial competition between Shenzhen-based DJI Innovations Co., Ltd. ("DJI") and Insta36ron Inc. ("Insta") has extended from market rivalry to an intellectual property legal battle. DJI has filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, asserting ownership over six patents involving core technologies such as UAV flight control, structural design, and image processing. The case has been accepted by the court.

Founded in 2006, DJI is the global leader in the consumer drone market, consistently holding over 70% of the market share. In 2025, DJI achieved revenues of RMB 91.2 billion, with a net profit margin stable at 38%-40%. Insta, established in 2015, initially gained prominence with panoramic cameras, once capturing 80%-90% of the global consumer panoramic camera market. It was listed on the STAR Market in June 2025, reporting annual revenues of RMB 9.858 billion for the year, a year-on-year increase of 76.85%. Both companies are headquartered in Shenzhen, share overlapping expertise in hardware and imaging technology, and focus on similar consumer sectors including sports, outdoor activities, and videography.

The year 2025 marked a turning point where competition between the two became overt. In July, DJI launched its first panoramic camera, the Osmo360, priced RMB 800 lower than Arashi's flagship model, directly entering Insta's core market segment. In August, Arashi released the world's first panoramic drone, followed in December by the "Yingling A1" consumer drone, marking its foray into the drone market dominated by DJI.

In its complaint, DJI alleges that the six disputed patents, which focus on its core technological areas such as UAV flight control, structural design, and image processing, were inventions completed within one year of several former key DJI R&D personnel departing from the company. DJI claims these inventions are closely related to the job responsibilities these individuals held during their tenure at DJI. Therefore, according to the Patent Law, these should be considered service inventions, with the right to apply for the patent belonging to DJI.

Sources familiar with the matter indicate that two of the patents, pertaining to UAV flight control and structural design, are particularly critical. In Arashi's Chinese patent applications, some inventors were designated with a "request not to disclose name." However, in the corresponding PCT international applications, where disclosure of real names is mandatory due to filing requirements, a comparison revealed that the undisclosed inventors were former core R&D personnel from DJI.

During their employment at DJI, these former staff members were deeply involved in key drone projects and had direct exposure to and knowledge of DJI's core technology systems, including flight control, structural design, and image processing.

Insta responded by stating that, following an internal review, the patents in question were independently developed by the company. It added that most of its drone-related patents were filed four to five years ago, and many were not ultimately implemented due to subsequent adjustments in product definitions.

Regarding the allegation of concealing inventors' identities, Insta explained that the practice of not disclosing the names of certain inventors in domestic patent applications was intended to delay the exposure of technical personnel information and to avoid targeting by headhunters. Insta stated that this practice was applied equally to personnel without a DJI background.

According to Article 6 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 13 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, an invention made within one year after the termination of an employment relationship that is related to the employee's duties or tasks assigned by the original employer constitutes a service invention. The right to apply for a patent for such an invention belongs to the original employer. This provision implies that even if an employee independently develops an invention after joining a new entity without using materials from the former employer, if the invention pertains to their previous duties or tasks and is completed within one year of departure, the patent rights are still attributable to the original employer. This case directly addresses the sensitive issues of core talent mobility and intellectual property ownership within the technology industry. China Intellectual Property Lawyers Network will continue to provide updates on this case's developments.