Patent Case Watch

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. 23-1245 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2026)

Errata Correction sheet to a previously issued opinion
Errata
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 23-1245
Decided
February 4, 2026
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
3 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

2Before 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 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 Kyocera3 Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 22 F.4th 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022).”1

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

February 4, 2026 Date

Footnotes

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

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. 23-1245 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2026).

Record ID
CAFC-23-1245-20260204
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-23-1245-20260204

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.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error

Other documents in this case