On March 5, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a case concerning intellectual property rights in the context of international trade and the domestic industry requirement under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The ruling has significant implications for patent enforcement at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the interpretation of what constitutes a “domestic industry.”

Background of the Case

Lashify, Inc., a U.S.-based company, filed a complaint with the ITC alleging that several importers were violating Section 337 by importing and selling artificial eyelash extension products that infringed its patents. The patents at issue included:

• U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984 (a utility patent related to lash extensions and their application process), and
• U.S. Design Patent Nos. D877,416 and D867,664 (design patents covering a lash applicator and storage cartridge).

To succeed under Section 337, Lashify had to demonstrate both patent infringement and the existence of a domestic industry relating to the patented products. The ITC ruled against Lashify, finding that it failed to satisfy the “economic prong” of the domestic industry requirement and that its own products did not practice the claimed invention of the ’984 patent.

Key Legal Issues Addressed

1. Domestic Industry Requirement Under Section 337

One of the central legal issues was the interpretation of the “economic prong” of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3), which requires a complainant to show:

• (A) Significant investment in plant and equipment;
• (B) Significant employment of labor or capital; or
• (C) Substantial investment in the exploitation of the patent, including engineering, research and development, or licensing.

The ITC found that Lashify’s domestic activities—sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution—did not qualify as “significant employment of labor or capital” under subsection (B). The Federal Circuit rejected this interpretation, ruling that the ITC had applied an overly restrictive reading of the statute. The court held that Section 337 does not categorically exclude expenditures on sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution. Instead, it directed the ITC to reassess Lashify’s expenditures under the correct legal framework.

2. Claim Construction and the “Heat Fused” Limitation

Another key issue was whether Lashify’s own lash extension products met the “heat fused” requirement in its ’984 patent. The ITC had determined that Lashify’s products did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry test because they did not form a “single entity” as required by the claim construction.

Lashify challenged this finding, arguing that “heat fused” should be interpreted more broadly. The Federal Circuit upheld the ITC’s construction, emphasizing that the claim language and specification supported the requirement that the fused fibers form a “single entity,” excluding methods that merely use glue as a binding agent. This ruling underscores the importance of precise claim drafting in patent applications and litigation.

Implications for Intellectual Property Law

This decision has several notable implications:

1. Expanded Scope of Domestic Industry: The ruling clarifies that non-manufacturing activities, such as warehousing and marketing, can contribute to a domestic industry analysis under Section 337. This makes it easier for companies that primarily engage in sales and distribution to seek ITC protection against infringing imports.
2. Stricter Standards for Proving Patent Practice: The court’s affirmation of the ITC’s claim construction reinforces the importance of clear patent drafting and claim scope. Patent holders must ensure that their claims are not so narrowly construed that their own products fail to qualify.
3. Stronger ITC Jurisdiction Over Design Patents: Since the Federal Circuit vacated the ITC’s decision regarding the economic prong for the design patents, the case may lead to stronger ITC enforcement of design patents, which are often easier to enforce than utility patents due to their lack of technical-prong requirements.

Conclusion

The Lashify, Inc. v. ITC decision is a pivotal case in ITC intellectual property enforcement. It reinforces a broader interpretation of the domestic industry requirement, making it more accessible for U.S.-based companies relying on intellectual property protection. At the same time, it highlights the critical importance of robust patent claim drafting and the need to ensure that a company’s own products meet the claimed invention’s requirements. As the case heads back to the ITC on remand, the industry will be watching closely to see how these legal principles are applied in practice.

By Charles Gideon Korrell