Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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: 1 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC 2
Before PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
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 con-
struction without deference and its underlying factual find-
ings 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 Commis-
sion’s claim construction without deference and its under-
lying 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 cor-
recting a misstatement in the opinion issued on March 5,
2025. The opinion’s statement—“We review the Commis-
sion’s claim construction without deference and its under-
lying 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 Commis-
sion’s claim construction without deference and its under-
lying factual findings for substantial evidence. See Kyocera
Case: 23-1245 Document: 130 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC 3
Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commis-
sion, 22 F.4th 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022).”1
February 4, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
1 After issuance of the order, the mandate will issue
forthwith.
Case: 23-1245 Document: 130 Page: 3 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 3 of 3 --