DJI and Insta360 trade patent lawsuits over vlogging camera designs

At a glance:

• DJI sued Insta360 on June 11 for allegedly copying design and utility patents in the Luna Ultra camera
• Insta360 countersued claiming DJI violated five of its gimbal and stabilization technology patents
• Both companies seek permanent injunctions and damages amid ongoing US regulatory restrictions on DJI sales

What happened

Camera makers DJI and Insta360 have entered a legal battle over their competing self-stabilizing cameras, with both sides filing patent infringement lawsuits within weeks of each other. The dispute centers on the DJI Osmo Pocket 3 and Insta360's recently launched Luna Ultra, two handheld devices targeting the growing vlogging and content creation market. According to PetaPixel, DJI initiated the conflict on June 11 by filing suit against Insta360, claiming violations of two design patents and four utility patents related to the Luna Ultra's development.

Insta360 responded with its own counter-lawsuits, turning the tables by alleging that DJI's products infringe on five of its own patents covering gimbal and stabilization technologies. The legal maneuvering represents a significant escalation in competition between two of the leading names in portable camera stabilization, as both companies attempt to protect their intellectual property while maintaining market position in an increasingly crowded segment.

Patent claims breakdown

DJI's initial lawsuit focuses on both design and utility aspects of its Osmo Pocket patents. The design patent claims specifically target the Luna Ultra's handheld body configuration, the neck connecting the body to the gimbal arm, its scroll wheel and record button placement, and the rotating display mechanism. These aesthetic and structural elements form the core user interface experience that DJI argues Insta360 copied without authorization.

The utility patent allegations from DJI center on gimbal tracking technology, which enables the camera to automatically follow subjects and maintain smooth footage during movement. DJI is seeking substantial remedies including a permanent injunction preventing Insta360 from selling the Luna Ultra, monetary damages "no less than a reasonable royalty," profit disgorgement requiring Insta360 to hand over earnings from the Luna Ultra, and enhanced damages based on potential willful infringement.

Insta360's counterclaims assert that DJI products violate patents covering:

• Gimbal stabilization
• Gimbal directional control
• Camera smooth stabilization
• Telemetry overlay
• Panoramic video stabilization

These technologies allegedly appear across DJI's product portfolio, including the Osmo Pocket series, Ronin products, Osmo Mobile lineup, and the Osmo 360. As part of its defense strategy, Insta360 emphasizes that the core technologies in the Luna Ultra originate from its earlier products, specifically the Link Series webcams and Flow Series gimbals, suggesting prior art that predates DJI's patent filings.

Market context and stakes

The patent dispute carries different implications for each company's market position. For DJI, the lawsuit comes at a challenging time as the company faces regulatory headwinds in the United States. In December 2025, the Federal Communications Commission added DJI to its "Covered List," effectively restricting the company's ability to sell new foreign-made drones and cameras in the US market. This regulatory constraint has forced DJI to develop workaround strategies, including selling cameras under a new brand called "Xtra" to circumvent the restrictions.

A favorable ruling for DJI could provide competitive relief by limiting Insta360's market access, potentially leveling the playing field as DJI attempts to maintain relevance in the US market despite regulatory obstacles. However, the outcome remains uncertain given both companies' extensive patent portfolios and the complex nature of technology patent disputes in the consumer electronics space.

What comes next

Both companies have been contacted by Engadget for comment on their respective lawsuits, though neither has responded publicly at the time of writing. The legal proceedings will likely unfold over several months, with both sides presenting evidence of their patent claims and prior art assertions.

Industry observers will watch closely to see whether this dispute settles out of court or proceeds to trial, as the outcome could significantly impact the vlogging camera market. A permanent injunction against either party would reshape competitive dynamics, while a settlement might involve cross-licensing agreements or financial compensation. The case also highlights the increasing importance of patent protection in the action camera and stabilization technology sectors, where innovation cycles are rapid and design similarities can spark expensive legal conflicts.