GoPro (NASDAQ: GPRO) clears $8.2M patent damages as court invalidates claims
Filing Impact
Filing Sentiment
Form Type
8-K/A
Rhea-AI Filing Summary
GoPro, Inc. reports a favorable court ruling that invalidates all asserted patent claims in its dispute with Contour IP Holding LLC and eliminates a prior damages award. A jury had previously awarded CIPH $8,200,000 for certain legacy camera products no longer made or sold.
On May 14, 2026, the Court granted GoPro’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding the sole remaining valid patent claim invalid as obvious. With all asserted claims of both patents now found invalid, the Court vacated the $8,200,000 award in its entirety and denied CIPH’s post-trial motions. As a result, GoPro states it has no liability from this case, though the ruling remains subject to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Positive
- Court vacates $8.2 million damages award and finds all asserted patent claims invalid, eliminating stated liability for GoPro in the Contour IP Holding LLC litigation.
Negative
- None.
Insights
Court wipes out $8.2M award and removes GoPro’s liability in key patent case.
The Order on Post-Trial Motions is a clear legal win for GoPro. The Court granted judgment as a matter of law, concluding the sole remaining patent claim (claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,890,954) is invalid as obvious, after a jury had already rejected infringement for recent products.
All asserted claims of both patents are now found invalid, and the earlier $8,200,000 damages award tied to legacy products was fully vacated. This removes a defined financial and operational overhang from the case, although the decision is still subject to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
If the ruling is sustained on appeal, GoPro avoids paying damages and gains clarity around alleged infringement of its 2020–2024 camera lineup, including HERO9 Black through HERO13 Black. Subsequent company filings can provide updates on any appeal progress or related litigation activity.
8-K Event Classification
3 items: 7.01, 8.01, 9.01
3 items
Item 7.01
Regulation FD Disclosure
Disclosure
Material non-public information disclosed under Regulation Fair Disclosure, often investor presentations or guidance.
Item 8.01
Other Events
Other
Voluntary disclosure of events the company deems important to shareholders but not covered by other items.
Item 9.01
Financial Statements and Exhibits
Exhibits
Financial statements, pro forma financial information, and exhibit attachments filed with this report.
Key Figures
Vacated damages award: $8,200,000
Jury verdict date: October 10, 2025
Trial start date: September 29, 2025
+2 more
5 metrics
Vacated damages award
$8,200,000
Jury’s past damages for legacy products, later vacated by Court
Jury verdict date
October 10, 2025
Jury found no infringement by 2020–2024 products and limited validity
Trial start date
September 29, 2025
Start of Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. in N.D. California
Post-trial Order date
May 14, 2026
Court granted judgment as a matter of law and invalidated remaining claim
Products cleared of infringement
HERO9 Black to HERO13 Black
Cameras launched 2020–2024 found not to infringe asserted patents
Key Terms
judgment as a matter of law, non-practicing entity, patent infringement, Regulation FD Disclosure, +1 more
5 terms
judgment as a matter of law regulatory
"The Court granted the Company's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding the sole remaining valid patent claim invalid as obvious."
non-practicing entity financial
"As previously disclosed, non-practicing entity Contour IP Holding LLC and its affiliates have filed lawsuits against GoPro, Inc."
patent infringement financial
"CIPH and its affiliates have filed lawsuits against GoPro, Inc. in various federal district courts alleging patent infringement of the Company’s camera products."
Patent infringement occurs when someone makes, uses, sells or imports a product or process that is covered by another party’s patent without permission — like copying a chef’s secret recipe and selling the dish without consent. For investors it matters because alleged infringement can trigger costly lawsuits, damage awards, sales bans or forced licensing, any of which can reduce revenue, increase expenses and hurt a company’s stock value.
Regulation FD Disclosure regulatory
"Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure. As previously disclosed in the Original, non-practicing entity Contour IP Holding LLC..."
Regulation FD disclosure requires public companies to share important, market-moving information with everyone at the same time instead of tipping off analysts or large investors first. Think of it as making sure all players on a field hear the same announcement simultaneously; that fairness helps investors trust that stock prices reflect the same information and reduces the risk of sudden, unfair trading advantages or regulatory penalties for selective leaks.
forward-looking statements regulatory
"This report on Form 8-K/A may contain projections or other forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933."
Forward-looking statements are predictions or plans that companies share about what they expect to happen in the future, like estimating sales or profits. They matter because they help investors understand a company's outlook, but since they are based on guesses and assumptions, they can sometimes be wrong.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K/A
(Amendment No. 1)
CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): October 16, 2025
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation) | (Commission File No.) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) | ||||||
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 332-7600
N/A
(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
| Title of each class | Trading Symbol(s) | Name of each exchange on which registered | ||||||
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).
Emerging growth company ☐
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Explanatory Note
This Amendment No. 1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on October 16, 2025 (the “Original Form 8-K”), is being filed solely to amend Item 7.01 to reflect current developments related to the subject matter of such prior disclosure as set forth herein. Accordingly, this Form 8-K/A supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, the Original Form 8-K and any filings made by the Company with the SEC subsequent to the date of the Original Form 8-K.
Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.
As previously disclosed in the Original Form 8-K, non-practicing entity Contour IP Holding LLC (“CIPH”) and its affiliates have filed lawsuits against GoPro, Inc. (the “Company”) in various federal district courts alleging patent infringement of the Company’s camera products. A trial for Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc. (Case No. 3:17-cv-04738WHO) commenced on September 29, 2025, before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”). On October 10, 2025, the jury concluded that none of the Company’s products commercially launched from 2020 – 2024, including HERO9 Black to HERO13 Black, infringe the two asserted patents. Additionally, the jury invalidated the only asserted claim of one of the two patents. With respect to the other asserted patent, the jury found one independent claim valid but also determined that the related dependent claim was invalid. As a result of the sole patent claim found to be valid and infringed, the jury awarded CIPH $8,200,000 in past damages for certain legacy products that were no longer made or sold by the Company. Following the jury verdict, Company and CIPH each filed post-trial motions challenging aspects of the jury’s verdict.
On May 14, 2026, the Court issued an Order on Post-Trial Motions (“Order”). The Court granted the Company's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the sole remaining valid patent claim (claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,890,954) invalid as obvious. In light of the October 10, 2025 jury verdict and the Order, all asserted claims of both patents have been found invalid. The Court vacated the $8,200,000 in its entirety and denied all of CIPH's post-trial motions, including CIPH’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. As a result, the Company has no liability arising from the case. The Court's ruling is subject to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Item 8.01. Other Events.
The information set forth in Item 7.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K is incorporated herein by reference.
Note on Forward-Looking Statements
This Current Report on Form 8-K/A may contain projections or other forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements in this Current Report on Form 8-K/A include, but are not limited to, statements related to any potential appeal and future litigation action. These forward-looking statements are based on the Company's current expectations and inherently involve significant risks and uncertainties. The Company's actual results and the timing of events may differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements due to risks and uncertainties, which include, but are not limited to, risks related to the outcome of any appeal of the Court's ruling. A further description of the risks and uncertainties relating to the business of the Company is contained in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 12, 2026, and as updated in filings with the SEC, including the Company's most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The Company undertakes no duty or obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or changes in its expectations.
Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(d) Exhibits:
Exhibit No. | Description | ||||
104 | Cover Page Interactive Data File - the cover page XBRL tags are embedded within the Inline XBRL document. | ||||
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
| GoPro, Inc. | ||||||||
| (Registrant) | ||||||||
| Dated: | May 18, 2026 | By: /s/ Jason Stephen | ||||||
Jason Stephen Senior Vice President, General Counsel | ||||||||
FAQ
What did GoPro (GPRO) announce about the Contour IP patent case?
GoPro reported a favorable post-trial ruling in its dispute with Contour IP Holding LLC. The Court invalidated all asserted patent claims and vacated an earlier $8,200,000 damages award, leaving GoPro with no liability from this case, subject to potential appeal.
How much in damages was originally awarded against GoPro in this lawsuit?
A jury previously awarded Contour IP Holding LLC $8,200,000 in past damages. Those damages related to certain legacy GoPro products that were no longer made or sold. The Court’s later Order on Post-Trial Motions vacated this $8,200,000 award in its entirety.
Which GoPro products were found not to infringe Contour IP’s patents?
The jury concluded that GoPro products commercially launched from 2020 to 2024 did not infringe the two asserted patents. This group included HERO9 Black through HERO13 Black cameras, which are core action camera models in GoPro’s recent product portfolio during that period.
What did the Court decide about the remaining patent claim against GoPro?
The Court granted GoPro’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the sole remaining valid patent claim. It held that claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,890,954 was invalid as obvious, meaning all asserted claims from both patents in the case are now found invalid.
Does GoPro (GPRO) still have any liability from the Contour IP lawsuit?
GoPro states it has no liability arising from this case following the Court’s Order. The $8,200,000 damages award was vacated and all asserted patent claims were found invalid. However, the ruling remains subject to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Can Contour IP Holding LLC appeal the Court’s ruling against its patents?
Yes. GoPro notes that the Court’s ruling on post-trial motions is subject to appeal. Contour IP Holding LLC may seek review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could evaluate the invalidity rulings and the vacated damages award in this patent dispute.