Lashify, Inc. v. Itc

Opinion

Case: 23-1245 Document: 130 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

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.

______________________

SUA SPONTE

______________________

Case: 23-1245 Document: 130 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2026

2 LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC

Before PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The court notes that the opinion issued in this case, Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 130 F.4th 948 (Fed. Cir. 2025), misstates one standard of review. At 130 F.4th at 964—page 27 of the court-issued version—the opinion states: “We review the Commission’s claim construction without deference and its underlying factual findings for clear error. See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 332 (2015).” The statement and citation should be altered to state: “We review the Commission ’s claim construction without deference and its underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. See Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 22 F.4th 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” That alteration changes nothing about the case-specific analysis set forth or result reached in the opinion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The mandate is recalled for the limited purpose of correcting a misstatement in the opinion issued on March 5, 2025. The opinion’s statement—“We review the Commission ’s claim construction without deference and its underlying factual findings for clear error. See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 332 (2015).”—is changed to read—“We review the Commission ’s claim construction without deference and its underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. See Kyocera

Case: 23-1245 Document: 130 Page: 3 Filed: 02/04/2026

LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC 3

Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission , 22 F.4th 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022).”1

FOR THE COURT

February 4, 2026 Date

1 After issuance of the order, the mandate will issue forthwith.