Notice2025-16799
Certain Artificial Eyelash Extension Systems, Products, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Grant a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 3, 2025
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to grant a joint motion to terminate the remand investigation in its entirety based on settlement. The remand investigation is terminated.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 168 (Wednesday, September 3, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 168 (Wednesday, September 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42612-42613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16799]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1226 (Remand)]
Certain Artificial Eyelash Extension Systems, Products, and
Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Grant a Joint
Motion To Terminate the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to grant a joint motion to terminate the
remand investigation in its entirety based on settlement. The remand
investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3228. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at <a href="https://edis.usitc.gov">https://edis.usitc.gov</a>. For help accessing EDIS, please email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91d4d5d8c2a2d9f4fde1d1e4e2f8e5f2bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98dddcd1cbabd0fdf4e8d8edebf1ecfbb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at <a href="https://www.usitc.gov">https://www.usitc.gov</a>. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 28, 2020, the Commission
instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), based on a
complaint filed by Lashify, Inc. of Glendale, California (``Lashify'').
See 85 FR 68366-67 (Oct. 28, 2020). The complaint, as supplemented,
alleges a violation of section 337 based upon the importation into the
United States, sale for importation, or sale after importation into the
United States of certain artificial eyelash extension systems,
products, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,660,388 (``the '388 patent'') and
10,721,984 (``the '984 patent''), and the sole claims of U.S. Design
Patent Nos. D877,416 (``the D'416 patent'') and D867,664 (``the D'664
patent''), respectively (collectively, the ``Asserted Patents''). The
complaint also alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The notice
of investigation (``NOI'') names nine respondents, including: KISS Nail
Products, Inc. of Port Washington, New York (``KISS''); Ulta Beauty,
Inc. of Bolingbrook, Illinois (``Ulta''); CVS Health Corporation of
Woonsocket, Rhode Island (``CVS''); Walmart, Inc. of Bentonville,
Arkansas (``Walmart''); Qingdao Hollyren Cosmetics Co., Ltd. d/b/a
Hollyren of Shandong Province, China; Qingdao Xizi International
Trading Co., Ltd. d/b/a Xizi Lashes of Shandong Province, China;
Qingdao LashBeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd. d/b/a Worldbeauty of Qingdao,
China; Alicia Zeng d/b/a Lilac St. and Artemis Family Beginnings, Inc.
of San Francisco, California; and Rachael Gleason d/b/a Avant Garde
Beauty Co. of Dallas, Texas (collectively, ``Respondents''). Id. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') is also a party to
the investigation. Id.
The Commission later amended the complaint and NOI to substitute
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. of Woonsocket, Rhode Island in place of named
respondent CVS Health Corporation and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics &
Fragrance, Inc. of Bolingbrook, Illinois in place of named respondent
Ulta Beauty, Inc. See Order No. 10, unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb.
10, 2021); see also 86 FR 9535 (Feb. 16, 2021).
The Commission later terminated the investigation as to claims 2-4
and 7 of the '388 patent and claims 6-8, 12, 18-19, 25-26, and 29 of
the '984 patent based on Complainant's partial withdrawal of the
complaint. See Order No. 24 (Apr. 23, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n
Notice (May 11, 2021). The Commission also previously terminated claims
2-5, 10-11, 14, 17, 21-22, and 24 of the '984 patent from the
investigation. See Order No. 38 (June 22, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n
Notice (July 6, 2021).
The Commission later terminated Rachael Gleason d/b/a Avant Garde
Beauty Company from the investigation based on a Consent Order. See
Order No. 28, unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (May 20, 2021).
The Commission later determined that Lashify failed to satisfy the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '388
patent, thus terminating that patent from the investigation. See Order
No. 35, unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (July 9, 2021).
On October 6, 2022, the Commission issued a final determination
finding no violation of section 337 as to any Asserted Patent and
terminated the investigation. 87 FR 62455-56 (Oct. 14, 2022).
Specifically, with respect to the '984 patent, the Commission
determined to: (1) find that Lashify has failed to satisfy the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; and (2) take no
position regarding whether claims 1, 9, 23, and 27 of the '984 patent
are invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Commission further
found that Lashify failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement for any of the Asserted Patents.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chair Karpel and Commissioner Schmidtlein dissented from the
majority's decision as to the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lashify timely appealed the Commission's final determination to the
Federal Circuit. Lashify v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, Appeal No. 2023-1245.
Respondents intervened in the appeal.
On March 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the Commission's
determination as to the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement for all three Asserted Patents and affirmed the
Commission's determination that Lashify failed to satisfy the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '984 patent. Lashify
v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 130 F.4th 948 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The Court
remanded for the Commission to determine whether there is ``significant
employment of labor or capital'' with respect to the two design
patents, the D'416 and D'664 patents.
The Commission filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and
rehearing en banc, which the Court denied on June 25, 2025. Lashify v.
Int'l Trade Comm'n, Appeal No. 2023-1245, ECF No. 128 (June 25, 2025).
On July 2, 2025, the Court issued its formal mandate returning
jurisdiction to the Commission for further proceedings.
On July 30, 2025, the Commission issued a notice seeking written
submissions regarding what further proceedings must be conducted on
remand. Comm'n Notice (July 30, 2025).
On August 7, 2024, the two remaining respondents, Qingdao Hollyren
[[Page 42613]]
Cosmetics Co., Ltd. d/b/a Hollyren and Qingdao Xizi International
Trading Co., Ltd. d/b/a Xizi Lashes (collectively, ``Hollyren'') and
Lashify filed a ``Joint Motion to Terminate the Investigation as to
Respondents [Hollyren] Based on the Moving Parties' Settlement
Agreement and Consent Arbitration Award Under 19 CFR 210.21(b).''
Exhibits to the motion included confidential and public versions of the
settlement agreement. The motion further included a statement that
``there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied
between Lashify and Hollyren concerning the subject matter of this
Investigation.'' The motion also served as the parties' response to the
Commission's July 30, 2025 Notice. That same day, OUII filed a response
to the July 30 Notice, stating that the motion, if granted, would
obviate the need for further proceedings. OUII also filed a separate
response in support of the motion.
The Commission has determined that the motion complies with the
requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)), and
that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would prevent the
requested termination. The Commission also finds that granting the
motion would not be contrary to the public interest pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2) (19 CFR 210.50(b)(2)). Accordingly, the
Commission hereby grants the motion.
The remand investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 28,
2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and
in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR
part 210.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 28, 2025.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2025-16799 Filed 9-2-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 3, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.