Contour IP v. GoPro — Court Overturns $8.2M Patent Verdict, Grants Judgment as a Matter of Law on Invalidity

Background

This case is the culmination of a decade-long patent war between Contour IP Holding and GoPro over technology for portable point-of-view cameras that can simultaneously record high-quality video and stream a live preview to a connected mobile device. Contour asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694, covering camera systems that generate dual video data streams—a lower-quality stream for real-time wireless preview on a phone and a higher-quality stream for local recording.

The case went through three waves of products (“Contour I,” “Contour II,” and “Contour III”), a Federal Circuit appeal, multiple rounds of summary judgment, and finally a ten-day jury trial in September–October 2025. At trial, the jury delivered a mixed verdict: it found that GoPro’s newer cameras (HERO9 through HERO13) did not infringe, found two of the three asserted claims invalid for anticipation and obviousness, but found claim 11 of the ’954 Patent valid. It awarded $8.2 million in damages tied to Judge Orrick’s prior summary judgment finding that GoPro’s earlier cameras infringed claim 11.

Both sides recognized the verdict was internally inconsistent: claim 12 depends on claim 11, yet the jury found claim 12 invalid while finding claim 11 valid. Related post: GoPro v. Contour IP — Federal Circuit Holds Trade Show Catalog Qualifies as Prior Art Printed Publication (2024 Federal Circuit ruling in the same case).

The Court’s Holding

Judge Orrick granted GoPro’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that claim 11 of the ’954 Patent is invalid. The court concluded that the jury’s verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent: because claim 12 is a dependent claim that incorporates all limitations of claim 11 plus additional ones, a finding that claim 12 was anticipated or obvious necessarily means claim 11 was also anticipated or obvious—a narrower claim cannot be invalid while a broader claim survives.

The court reviewed the trial evidence and determined that GoPro had presented sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness of claim 11 through prior art references including trade show demonstrations and earlier camera technology. Because the evidence overwhelmingly supported invalidity, JMOL was appropriate rather than a new trial.

The court denied all of Contour’s post-trial motions, including its motion for a new trial on infringement, willfulness, and damages. The ruling eliminates the $8.2 million damages award entirely, since those damages were tied exclusively to the now-invalidated claim 11.

Key Takeaways

• Inconsistent verdicts on dependent claims can be fatal. When a jury finds a dependent claim invalid but its parent independent claim valid, the verdict is irreconcilably inconsistent. Courts can resolve this by granting JMOL on the independent claim rather than ordering a new trial.
• Summary judgment infringement findings can be undone post-trial. Even though Judge Orrick had previously ruled that GoPro infringed claim 11 at summary judgment, the jury’s invalidity finding at trial nullified the entire damages foundation built on that earlier ruling.
• Decade-long patent cases can end with zero recovery. After more than 10 years of litigation spanning multiple product generations, a Federal Circuit appeal, and a full jury trial, Contour walks away with nothing. The new trial-era cameras were found non-infringing, and the legacy cameras’ damages were eliminated by the invalidity ruling.

Why It Matters

This ruling marks the likely end of one of the longest-running patent disputes in the action camera industry. For technology companies, the case illustrates both the power and peril of patent litigation that spans multiple product generations: by the time Contour’s claims reached a jury, GoPro’s newer products had designed around the patents entirely, and the prior art caught up to invalidate the legacy claims.

The decision is also instructive on how courts handle inconsistent jury verdicts in patent cases. Rather than sending the invalidity question back for a new trial, Judge Orrick took the more aggressive step of granting JMOL—signaling that when the logical relationship between dependent and independent claims makes the inconsistency irreconcilable, courts need not give the jury another chance to get it right.