United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LASHIFY, INC., Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee

QINGDAO HOLLYREN COSMETICS CO. LTD., DBA HOLLYREN, QINGDAO XIZI INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD., DBA XIZI LASHES, QINGDAO LASHBEAUTY COSMETIC CO., LTD., DBA WORLDBEAUTY, KISS NAIL PRODUCTS, INC., ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., WALMART, INC., CVS PHARMACY, INC., ARTEMIS FAMILY BEGINNINGS, INC., DBA LILAC ST., ALICIA ZENG, Intervenors ______________________

2023-1245 ______________________

Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1226. ______________________

Decided: March 5, 2025 ______________________

SAINA S. SHAMILOV, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by TODD Case: 23-1245 Document: 110 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2025

2 LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC

RICHARD GREGORIAN, BRYAN ALEXANDER KOHM, San Fran- cisco, CA; JONATHAN G. TAMIMI, Seattle, WA.

LYNDE FAUN HERZBACH, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washing- ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DOMINIC L. BIANCHI, WAYNE W. HERRINGTON, MICHELLE W. KLANCNIK.

MICHAEL HAWES, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX, ar- gued for intervenors. Kiss Nail Products, Inc., Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Walmart, Inc., CVS Phar- macy, Inc. also represented by LORI DING; THEODORE W. CHANDLER, Los Angeles, CA; LISA M. KATTAN, THOMAS CHISMAN MARTIN, Washington, DC.

JASON R. BARTLETT, Maschoff Brennan, San Francisco, CA, for intervenors Artemis Family Beginnings, Inc., Alicia Zeng. Also represented by RORY JEFFREY RADDING, New York, NY.

MARK A. MILLER, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Salt Lake City, UT, for intervenors Qingdao Hollyren Cosmetics Co. Ltd., Qingdao Xizi International Trading Co., Ltd., Qing- dao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd. Also represented by ELLIOT HALES; HUI SHEN, Washington, DC. ______________________

Before PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Lashify, Inc., an American company with headquarters and employees in the United States, distributes, markets, and sells in the United States eyelash extensions (and cases and applicators for the eyelash extensions) that it ar- ranges to have manufactured abroad. Lashify, having pa- tents on the products, filed a complaint before the International Trade Commission (Commission or ITC) Case: 23-1245 Document: 110 Page: 3 Filed: 03/05/2025

LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC 3

alleging that certain other importers of like products were violating section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, because (as relevant here) their products infringe (e.g., the products’ sale in or importation into the U.S. in- fringes) claims of three Lashify-owned patents: a utility pa- tent, U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984; and two design patents, U.S. Design Patent Nos. D877,416 and D867,664. Section 337 provides relief against such importation, but “only if an industry in the United States, relating to the articles protected by the patent . . . exists or is in the process of be- ing established.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). That domestic- industry requirement demands a showing of “an industry” as defined by section 337(a)(3) (commonly called the “eco- nomic prong”) and a showing of its “relati[on] to the [pa- tented] articles” (commonly called the “technical prong”), the latter (at least here) requiring the complainant’s prod- ucts to come within the asserted patents.