On March 23, 2026, DJI formally filed a lawsuit against Insta360 before the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, involving six patent‑ownership disputes in which multiple former core R&D staff of DJI were alleged to be involved, and the court accepted the case. This marks DJI’s first patent‑ownership litigation filed in China. The core legal controversy of the case revolves around a key provision on service invention under the Patent Law: an invention‑creation completed within one year after an employee leaves the former employer, which relates to the employee’s original job duties or assigned tasks, shall belong to the former employer.

Key Facts of the Case: An Asymmetric Information Disclosure

The six involved patents cover core technical fields including UAV flight control, structural design and image processing. DJI points out that most of the first filing dates of the involved patents fall within one year after the departure of the former employees; even if the filing date of an individual patent slightly exceeds the one‑year limit, considering the time required for drafting application documents, it may still be recognized as an “invention‑creation completed within one year after resignation”.

What truly distinguishes this case from ordinary service‑invention disputes lies in one procedural detail: in two patents respectively related to UAV flight control and structural design, Insta360 requested that the name of part of the inventors not be published in Chinese applications, while the corresponding international patent applications mandatorily disclose the real name of that inventor — who is exactly a former core R&D employee of DJI.

Insta360 explained that concealing the inventor’s name was to respect employees’ willingness and delay exposure of technical staff lists. This practice was not targeted solely at former DJI employees and was conducted in accordance with laws and regulations.

Legal Perspective: “Intentional Circumvention” Does Not Affect Service‑invention Determination

From the perspective of Chinese law, it is legal for an inventor to request non‑publication of his or her name. According to the Patent Examination Guidelines, if a request for non‑publication of the inventor’s name is submitted after filing, a written statement signed or sealed by the inventor shall be submitted. The problem is not “whether anonymity is allowed”, but the motive behind anonymity.

Associate Professor Fu Jicun, Director of the Institute of Intellectual Property Law at China University of Political Science and Law, pointed out in an interview with Xinhuanet that the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court has clarified that if listing nominal inventors or concealing real inventors is found to be “for circumvention of law”, such conduct shall not affect the determination of service‑invention ownership. In this case, if the real‑name information disclosed in international applications can prove that the disputed patent is a service invention‑creation, Insta360 as the new employer bears the burden to give a reasonable explanation for the R&D process or technical source of the involved patents.

In short: the practice of “domestic anonymity, international real‑name disclosure” itself is not illegal. However, if the court finds its purpose is to cover up the fact that the inventor is a former DJI employee, anonymity will not block the finding of service‑invention, and may instead become adverse evidence.

Presumption Rule for “Within One‑year After Resignation”: Who Bears the Burden of Rebuttal

Another key legal question in this case is how to define the time boundary of “within one year after resignation”. Tang Chengfei, Deputy Presiding Judge of Hangzhou Intellectual Property Court, expressed in another similar case: “For an invention‑creation completed within one year after resignation, as long as it relates to the original job duties, it is legally presumed to be a service invention, unless sufficient counter‑evidence is provided.”

Under this presumption rule, once the former employer proves that “the employee filed a patent related to former work within one year after resignation”, the burden of proof shifts to the departing employee and the new employer. If Insta360 claims that the relevant patents are “independent innovation achievements”, it shall produce complete R&D records to rebut this presumption — including the time of idea generation, R&D logs, experimental data and other materials.

Three Practical Reminders for Enterprises

First, maintain consistency for inventor‑listing operations. Asymmetric practice of domestic anonymous application while disclosing real‑names in international filings is hardly defensible in ownership disputes. If the real purpose of anonymity is to protect R&D staff privacy, real‑name disclosure in international applications defeats that purpose. If the purpose is to circumvent service‑invention findings, existing judicial rules confirm that intentional circumvention will not alter ownership conclusions. Patent agents should fully assess legal risks when handling inventor listings.

Second, build a “firewall” for patent applications from newly‑hired departing employees. For newly recruited R&D personnel, it is recommended to require written statements upon onboarding: whether they are involved in service inventions belonging to former employers, and whether there are patent applications requiring special attention within one‑year post‑resignation. This is not distrust of talents, but protection for the enterprise itself.

Third, keep R&D records from day one. Insta360’s core defense is “independent innovation achievement”. In ownership disputes, oral assertions cannot replace evidence. R&D project records, design sketches, code submission logs, experimental data, internal review minutes — documents easily overlooked in daily management are exactly the critical evidence in ownership disputes. R&D managers and HR are suggested to incorporate “retention of R&D process documents” into project management systems, with clear responsible persons and retention periods.