影石涉美337调查判了：将继续在美销售现有产品

Core Viewpoint - The final ruling of the US 337 investigation allows the company to continue importing and selling its existing products in the US without restrictions, indicating no substantial impact on its operations from the investigation [2][3]. Group 1: Investigation Outcome - The US International Trade Commission (ITC) conducted the 337 investigation based on a complaint from GoPro, alleging infringement of six patents by the company [2]. - The ITC's preliminary ruling in July 2025 found that only some of the company's products fell under one design patent, and the new design did not infringe on any patents, with the remaining five patent claims being invalidated [2]. - The final ruling on February 26, 2026, confirmed that three invention patents were invalid or partially invalid, and the products did not infringe, with only one design patent previously applicable to an older product that is no longer exported to the US [2][3]. Group 2: Company Performance - The company reported a significant revenue increase of 76.85% year-on-year, reaching 9.858 billion yuan in its 2025 annual performance report, marking a historical high [3]. - However, the net profit attributable to the parent company decreased by 3.08% to approximately 964 million yuan, indicating a "revenue growth without profit increase" situation [3]. - The revenue growth was attributed to enhanced market expansion efforts, accelerated new product development, and collaborative online and offline sales channels, while the profit decline was influenced by increased R&D investments and fluctuations in raw material prices [3]. Group 3: Market Impact - Following the announcement of the investigation's conclusion, the company's stock price experienced a slight decline, closing at 218.26 yuan, down 0.79%, with a market capitalization of 87.522 billion yuan [4]. - The favorable outcome of the 337 investigation is expected to support the company's future market performance [4]. - GoPro retains the right to appeal the ruling within 60 days and may seek to restart related litigation in the US District Court for the Central District of California [4].