Lashify, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
In a significant decision for patent owners who manufacture their products overseas, the Federal Circuit in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission clarified what activities can qualify as a “domestic industry” under U.S. trade law. Lashify, Inc., an American company that sells eyelash extension products made abroad, accused several importers of infringing its patents and sought relief from the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC denied Lashify’s request, finding that the company didn’t meet the “domestic industry” requirement because its U.S. activities—like sales, marketing, warehousing, and quality control—didn’t count unless paired with domestic manufacturing.
The Federal Circuit disagreed with the ITC’s narrow interpretation. The court explained that the law (19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(B)) does not require domestic manufacturing for a company to show a domestic industry. Instead, significant U.S. employment of labor or capital—including for sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution—can qualify, as long as those activities are substantial and related to the patented products. The court emphasized that Congress intentionally wrote the law to allow these kinds of business activities to count, rejecting the ITC’s view that only manufacturing or similar activities matter.
However, the court did side with the ITC on a technical patent issue. Lashify’s main utility patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984, covers eyelash extensions with “heat fused” fibers. The court agreed with the ITC’s interpretation that “heat fused” means the fibers must be joined to form a “single entity,” not just glued together, and found that Lashify’s products did not meet this requirement. As a result, Lashify could not claim a domestic industry for this utility patent, but the court sent the case back to the ITC to reconsider whether Lashify’s activities support a domestic industry for its two design patents, using the correct, broader legal standard.
This decision is a win for U.S. companies that design, market, and sell patented products domestically—even if they manufacture them abroad. It clarifies that a wide range of business activities can help establish a domestic industry at the ITC, making it easier for such companies to protect their intellectual property from infringing imports.