Lashify has been on a legal hot streak as of late. The eyelash extension brand created by Sahara Lotti was victorious in yet another major patent litigation case against alleged infringers. On March 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit overturned the International Trade Commission's (ITC) ruling that Lashify did not meet the economic requirements of Section 337's domestic industry requirement, designed to protect domestic industries from unfair foreign competition.

The Federal Circuit determined that the ITC wrongly excluded Lashify's sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution expenses from its domestic industry analysis. This win also sets a new precedent for the domestic industry requirement, making it easier for start-ups and smaller businesses to protect their intellectual property.

“Last week’s ruling is a victory not only for Lashify but for all American businesses that innovate and challenge stagnant industries—especially those navigating limited US manufacturing options,” said a company spokesperson in an email to BeautyMatter.

It affirms that the US must protect all American companies, not just large corporations, from foreign knockoffs, said the company spokesperson. “This is a crucial step toward ensuring that small businesses, particularly those led by women, have the same access to protection as industry giants.”

While this win is significant, it’s not a slam dunk for Lashify’s ITC legal battles against alleged infringers. The same ruling in the Federal Circuit also upheld a previous ITC decision regarding Lashify's utility patent, which found that Lashify's products did not meet the "heat-fused" specification that its patent outlines. The outcome of this ruling means that Lashify can only pursue an import ban based on its design patents and not its utility patent.

So, what does this mean for Lashify’s ongoing battle against competitors using the brand’s patents without proper license? In short, the fight continues, but this ruling certainly helps tip the scales in Lashify’s favor.

The ITC’s Role in Protecting US Patents

Some important context is required to understand the implications of this ruling for both Lashify and other small US businesses that leverage the Commission to protect intellectual property. The ITC is an independent federal agency that investigates and makes rulings in proceedings involving imports that may negatively impact US industries. It takes action against unfair trade practices, including intellectual property and copyright infringement. The ITC's role is to protect US interests from imported goods that infringe on valid US intellectual property rights, such as patents and trademarks. ITC proceedings can be faster and more effective than federal court litigation, especially when dealing with numerous international infringers.

The ITC has the power to prevent infringing products from entering the US market under section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930. In 2020, Lashify filed a Section 337 complaint with the ITC alleging that several companies (including KISS Nail Products, Inc., Ulta Beauty, Walmart, and CVS) were importing and selling eyelash extension products that infringed on three Lashify-owned patents. Two of the patents (patent no. D877,416 and patent no. D867,664) were design patents covering the ornamental design of a storage cartridge for eyelash extensions and an eyelash extension applicator. The other patent was a utility patent (patent no. 10,721,984), which relates to lash extensions (or “lash fusions”) consisting of clusters of artificial hairs arrayed along a base that can be applied under the user’s natural lashes via a heat seal process.

There are two elements to winning a case in the ITC: the economic prong and the technical prong. To satisfy the economic prong, a company has to prove that a domestic industry exists related to the patents in question and demonstrate “significant investment in plant and equipment; significant employment of labor or capital; or substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research, and development, or licensing,” according to the decision. To satisfy the technical prong, the asserted patent claims must be utilized in the company's own products.

The ITC's initial ruling stated that Lashify did not meet the requirements of either prong. It determined that the company's warehousing, sales, marketing, and quality control costs did not constitute "significant employment of labor or capital," as required by the economic prong. It’s worth noting that the ITC Commissioners disagreed on whether Lashify had established a domestic industry. The final vote was 3-2, but even the two dissenting members agreed that sales and marketing alone cannot be used to prove domestic industry.

Lashify disagreed with the ruling and filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit. The company argued that the agency had incorrectly applied the domestic industry test and misinterpreted the claims in its utility patent.

The Federal Circuit’s Ruling

In early March, the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling, stating that the ITC’s narrow view of the “economic prong” of the domestic industry was incorrect while upholding the ITC’s decision that Lashify’s lashes were adhered using heated adhesive rather than heat fusion, as claimed in the patent application.

The court determined that the Commission made a mistake by disregarding Lashify’s US investments, including those in sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution. The Federal Circuit ruled that it must redo the analysis to account for the full scope of Lashify’s domestic investments.

Most importantly, the decision was also designated “precedential,” meaning it is a new precedent the Commission must follow going forward. Because the Federal Circuit has corrected—and broadened—the Commission’s view of the economic domestic industry, the decision opens the door for start-ups or smaller US businesses to protect their intellectual property at the Commission. In short, this case marks a major shift, changing decades of ITC standard practice and amending the law in the process. It’s the most important appellate decision on the domestic industry requirement in at least a decade.

For Lashify, the ongoing battle to protect its patents at the ITC is far from over. The case was remanded to the ITC by the Federal Circuit to reassess if Lashify's investments in warehousing, sales, marketing, and quality control qualify as “significant employment of labor or capital.”

Based on the Federal Circuit’s ruling, Lashify can pursue infringements on its design patents in the ITC but not its utility patents. If Lashify is successful, ITC can issue an exclusion order. This order would direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop the importation of infringing goods into the United States, effectively preventing the import and sale of eyelash extension products that infringe on Lashify's design patents.