ARTICLE
17 March 2026

US Design Patents And ITC Enforcement: Are Design Patents The Most Interesting Intellectual Property Asset In ITC Investigations?

KG
K&L Gates LLP

Contributor

At K&L Gates, we foster an inclusive and collaborative environment across our fully integrated global platform that enables us to diligently combine the knowledge and expertise of our lawyers and policy professionals to create teams that provide exceptional client solutions. With offices worldwide, we represent leading global corporations in every major industry, capital markets participants, and ambitious middle-market and emerging growth companies. Our lawyers also serve public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations, and individuals. We are leaders in legal issues related to industries critical to the economies of both the developed and developing worlds—including technology, manufacturing, financial services, healthcare, energy, and more.
The ITC found no violation for any of the utility patents, yet issued a limited exclusion order finding that Insta360 violated section 337 with respect to its infringement of the design patent.
United States Intellectual Property
Sam Breeze’s articles from K&L Gates LLP are most popular:
  • within Intellectual Property topic(s)
  • in European Union
  • in European Union
  • in European Union
  • with readers working within the Law Firm industries
K&L Gates LLP are most popular:
  • within Immigration, Transport and Law Practice Management topic(s)

A recent final determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-1400 issued by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) may have some clients saying, "I don't always seek ITC enforcement. But when I do, I prefer to include a design patent." GoPro, Inc. had alleged that Arashi Vision, Inc. d/b/a Insta360 (Insta 360) infringed claims of five different utility patents and one design patent.

The ITC found no violation for any of the utility patents, yet issued a limited exclusion order finding that Insta360 violated section 337 with respect to its infringement of the design patent. These images from the Initial Determination illustrate the visual comparison between the design patent (left) and accused products (right):

1758506a.jpg

The ITC appeared to inexplicably omit claimed features (e.g., the side buttons) from their comparison of the cameras. It further found that Insta360's redesigned cameras did not infringe GoPro's design patent.

Without analyzing the outcome in this investigation, we identify a greater trend across the ITC over recent years. Based on data over the last fifteen years, the ITC appears to be more inclined to issue a remedial order in investigations where a design patent is included.

Although it can be challenging to interpret the conditional remedial orders associated with Final Determinations at the ITC with a general search, the data shows that investigations including a design patent are much more likely to result in a remedial order.

1758506b.jpg

The apparent success of design patent investigations may simply be a function of the relative ease of comparing the images of the design patent to images of a potential infringing article compared to parsing the claim language of utility patents. While this should not be seen as a reflection on the importance of utility patents in your portfolio, it does underscore the importance of considering whether design patents can play a role in your portfolio and ITC practice. The data is clear, the inclusion of a design patent can make the investigation a little more...interesting.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More