In March 2026, Shenzhen, China's tech innovation epicenter, became the stage for a high-profile patent dispute between DJI and Insta360, two titans of the smart imaging industry, involving six pivotal patent ownership conflicts. These legal skirmishes have significantly reshaped the competitive landscape.

This rivalry transcends a mere legal tussle; it's a profound strategic clash over technological frontiers, market domains, and the industry's future trajectory. It signals China's high-tech sector's transition from a 'wild growth' exploration phase to a new era of 'rule reconstruction' in the "Market Share Game" (a term denoting fierce competition for existing market share).

From Parallel Coexistence to Direct Confrontation

Historically, DJI and Insta360 maintained a nuanced, parallel coexistence, akin to chess generals defending their realms across a river.

According to 36Kr, DJI commands the consumer drone market with a global share consistently surpassing 70%. Leveraging its robust technological foundation and an expanding product portfolio, it has swiftly ascended as a global drone industry leader. Insta360, meanwhile, specializes in the niche market of panoramic cameras, maintaining a global market share exceeding 60% for years, fortifying its technological stronghold in panoramic imaging.

Although their technological paths occasionally intersected, their core business boundaries remained distinct, avoiding direct encroachment and preserving a stable ecosystem in the smart imaging industry. However, the market growth ceiling and the allure of cross-border expansion have shattered this unspoken agreement.

As the panoramic camera market's growth potential dwindles and prospects saturate, companies are venturing into new territories. In 2025, Insta360 unveiled its 'Yingling Antigravity' drone, merging 'full-screen display with aerial vehicles' to penetrate DJI's mainstream market and diversify its product offerings. Liu Jingkang, Insta360's founder, termed this move a 'driven expectation,' essential for overcoming growth barriers and pioneering a second growth trajectory.

DJI swiftly countered this cross-border challenge. In July of the same year, it launched its inaugural panoramic camera, the Osmo360. Leveraging its strong brand influence and competitive pricing, it captured nearly 40% of China's panoramic camera market within a quarter, swiftly establishing a foothold. Since then, the once-distinct paths of drones and panoramic cameras have fully converged, propelling both companies from implicit, staggered competition to a comprehensive, active confrontation, intensifying the struggle in the smart imaging sector.

Multi-Dimensional Competition Escalation: From Product Rivalry to Industrial Warfare

Simple product competition that merely breaches market boundaries is no longer sufficient. The rivalry has escalated from a single product level to a 'three-dimensional war' encompassing legal, supply chain, and sales channels, with each dimension crucial for the companies' survival and growth.

DJI's patent litigation triggered this multi-dimensional conflict, with patents becoming a vital competitive tool. The disputes center on 'service invention' ownership. DJI accused Insta360 of infringement, claiming that some core technologies originated from products developed by its former employees within a year of their departure and that legal rulings had determined these technologies belonged to DJI. The six patents involved cover crucial areas like flight management, structural planning, and image processing, closely tied to both companies' core market competitiveness.

In the intellectual property dispute, DJI and Insta360 hold divergent views. DJI asserts its actions safeguard R&D investments and legal rights. In contrast, Insta360 states its technologies are independently developed, won't affect DJI's growth, and explains the patent dispute as primarily a legal and market strategy. DJI aims to disrupt its rival's expansion plans and issue a warning through legal actions to prevent potential cross-border competition.

The competition rapidly spread upstream to the supply chain, becoming a new key battleground. According to Securities Times, Insta360 revealed that over 30 of its core suppliers (covering critical components like optical lenses and chips) had tense 'either-or' relationships with DJI. Some suppliers discontinued cooperation with Insta360 due to exclusive agreements with DJI, directly impacting Insta360's production and cost stability.

In response to supply chain blockades, Insta360 has made tremendous efforts to accelerate supply chain reconstruction and find alternative suppliers to ensure normal product production and supply. DJI, however, states that deep cooperation with suppliers is an industry norm, and exclusive agreements aim to protect jointly developed outcomes and ensure supply chain stability, rather than intentionally suppress competitors. This supply chain dispute underscores industry leaders' control over upstream resources and the importance of key components for high-tech companies.

The competition has extended to the sales front, with physical channels becoming the final arena for user experience and market share contention. For instance, in Changsha, some Insta360 dealers reported that DJI had forcibly demanded the removal of their brand signs due to exclusive cooperation agreements with DJI's dealers, preventing the joint sale of competitor products.

This exclusive distribution approach not only affects dealers' operations but also restricts customer choices. Subsequently, under government regulation, some exclusive contracts were invalidated for harming third-party rights. This indicates fierce competition between the two sides in sales and promotional channels, significantly impacting their market share and brand reputation.

Blurring Boundaries of Rules: Industry Deliberation on Rights Protection and Monopoly

The 'clash of the titans' between DJI and Insta360 has not only drawn industry-wide attention but also sparked deep reflection on fair competition and intellectual property protection. The boundaries between rights protection and monopoly have become increasingly blurred.

On one hand, DJI has rational legal claims regarding patent ownership. In high-tech industries, technological innovation is the core competitiveness, requiring substantial R&D investments. Patents are the cornerstone of intellectual property and a key means to protect R&D outcomes and innovation revenue. Strengthening intellectual property protection is not only a legitimate right of companies but also aligns with China's encouragement of technological innovation and industry regulation, fostering a favorable ecological environment that values innovation and respects intellectual property.

However, on the other hand, there are suspicions that DJI is leveraging its dominant position in the drone market to exert exclusive pressure on suppliers and channel partners, potentially crossing anti-monopoly law boundaries. As technological 'moats' evolve into 'blockades' restricting competitors' growth, and when 'rights protection' is perceived as a tool for 'suppression,' it can significantly impact market fairness and potentially stifle the industry's innovative development momentum. This dilemma plagues both companies and reflects common challenges in the "Market Share Game" within the high-tech industry.

An Industry Model for Reshaping Rules

The competition between DJI and Insta360 transcends the success or failure of individual companies. It's a natural outcome of China's hardware technology development at a certain scale, a fierce clash when leading companies seek market breakthroughs, and an inevitable choice for the industry's transformation from quantitative to qualitative growth.

Regardless of whether the final outcome is a clear legal ruling on ownership or a negotiated dispute settlement, it will set a highly referential 'Chinese example' for intellectual property protection, personnel mobility regulations, supply chain ethics, and anti-monopoly norms in China's tech industry. It will also, to a considerable extent, define the future rules of competition for tech companies: whether they will pursue a self-enclosed 'zero-sum game' or an open 'co-opetition and symbiosis.'

For China's high-tech industry, this game presents both challenges and opportunities. It will promote the improvement of industry rules, lead companies to focus on compliant operations and fair competition, and emphasize core technological innovation for high-quality development. This is not only an issue for DJI and Insta360 but also a topic the entire Chinese high-tech industry must collectively explore for the future.