Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Lashify, Inc. v. ITC, No. 22-1566 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2022)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-1566
Decided
June 1, 2022
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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, QIANGDAO

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 Street,

ALICIA ZENG,

Intervenors

2022-1566

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

ON MOTION

2Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Appellee International Trade Commission moves to dismiss Appeal No. 2022-1566 as premature. ECF No. 21. Lashify, Inc. opposes dismissal and requests instead that the appeal be held in abeyance. ECF No. 26.

Lashify filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the Commission’s decision not to review certain non-infringement findings regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. But even Lashify’s notice characterized the Commission’s decision as not “final” for purposes of judicial review under Tessera, Inc. v. ITC, 646 F.3d 1357, 1367–69 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c)), based on the Commission’s pending consideration of certain other issues in the investigation. ECF No. 1-2 at 4. We agree with the parties that, under the circumstances of this case, we lack jurisdiction over Lashify’s appeal because there has been no final determination. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the court determines that dismissal (rather than a stay) is appropriate in this case, see, e.g., A & J Mfg., LLC v. ITC, 584 F. App’x 933 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but the court will allow Lashify to reinstate its appeal if, within 60 days of the entry of this order, it appeals from a final determination.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

3(1) The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject, however, to reinstatement under the same docket number without payment of any additional filing fee if, within 60 days of the entry of this order, Lashify appeals from the entry of a final determination. The mandate shall issue simultaneously with this order. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

June 1, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 1, 2022

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Lashify, Inc. v. ITC, No. 22-1566 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2022).

Record ID
CAFC-22-1566-20220601
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-1566-20220601

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.