Lashify Lawsuit: Verdict, ITC Ruling, and Settlements

The Lashify lawsuits are a coordinated patent enforcement campaign that the DIY eyelash extension company has run since 2020, producing at least ten federal cases, an International Trade Commission complaint, a $34.1 million jury verdict against a Chinese competitor, a Federal Circuit ruling that expanded ITC access for companies without U.S. factories, and settlements with several manufacturers. Founder Sahara Lotti has said the company spent $50 million over four years defending its patents.¹

What Lashify Is Fighting Over

Lashify sells a home lash extension system built around an “underlash” application method, where clusters attach to the underside of the natural lash line, along with proprietary tools like the Fuse Control Wand and bonding agents.²³⁴ Its lawsuits generally accuse competitors of copying that system, the applicator tools, or both.

The $34 Million Verdict Against Worldbeauty

Lashify’s biggest courtroom win came on August 23, 2024, when a federal jury in the Western District of Texas unanimously found that Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., doing business as Worldbeauty, had willfully infringed three Lashify patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,219,260, 11,253,020, and 11,234,472) covering segmented lash ribbon systems and attachment methods.⁵⁶

The jury rejected Worldbeauty’s argument that the patents were invalid as obvious. It awarded $30.5 million in lost profits and $3.6 million in reasonable royalties, calculated at a 30% rate that reporting described as unusually high for patent litigation.⁶ Lashify obtained a permanent injunction in December 2024.⁷

The dispute has continued past the verdict. Lashify has asked the court for enhanced damages and attorney fees, alleging that Worldbeauty kept selling infringing products and was trying to hide assets. Worldbeauty denied those allegations. As of mid-2025 the court had not ruled on the enhanced damages request, which could in theory triple the award.⁸

Worldbeauty’s False Marking Counterclaim

Worldbeauty filed its own counterclaim under 35 U.S.C. § 292, alleging that Lashify labeled its products as “patented” on social media as early as March 2018, more than two years before Lashify received its first U.S. patent for artificial eyelashes on May 26, 2020. A magistrate judge recommended denying Lashify’s motion to dismiss, finding that Worldbeauty had adequately alleged both intent to deceive and competitive injury. The counterclaim was allowed to proceed; no final merits ruling appears in the available record.⁹

The ITC Case and the Federal Circuit Ruling That Changed the Rules

In September 2020, Lashify filed an ITC complaint (Investigation No. 337-TA-1226) seeking to block imports of allegedly infringing lash products. Respondents included Walmart, CVS, Ulta, Kiss Nail Products, Lilac St., and the Chinese manufacturers Qingdao Hollyren, Qingdao Xizi, and Worldbeauty.¹⁰

Lashify lost at the ITC. Although an Administrative Law Judge found that some respondents had infringed Lashify’s design patents, the ALJ also ruled that Lashify failed the “domestic industry” requirement because it does not manufacture in the United States and its U.S. spending on sales, marketing, warehousing, and distribution did not count. The commission issued a final “no violation” determination in October 2022.¹⁰¹¹

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed. In Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 130 F.4th 948, decided March 5, 2025, the court held that the ITC applied the wrong legal standard. The statute requires “significant employment of labor or capital,” and nothing in the text excludes spending on sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, or distribution, even when a company does no domestic manufacturing. The ITC’s practice of treating those activities as the work of a “mere importer” had no basis in the law. The court vacated the domestic industry ruling for the two design patents and remanded. It affirmed, however, that Lashify’s own products did not practice its utility patent because they lacked the “heat fused” element the patent claimed, taking that patent out of the case.¹⁰

The ruling was covered as a significant expansion of ITC access for companies that design and sell in the United States but manufacture abroad, a common model in beauty and consumer goods. Rehearing was denied in June 2025 and the mandate issued in July 2025.¹⁰ The remand became moot in August 2025 when Lashify settled with the last remaining respondent, Qingdao Hollyren, and dropped the investigation.¹²

The Other Lashify Lawsuits

Kiss Nail Products

Lashify’s first major infringement suit, filed August 5, 2020, in the District of New Jersey, targeted Kiss Nail Products over its $19.99 “Falscara” lash kit. Lashify asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 10,721,984 and 10,660,388 and said Kiss had ignored multiple cease-and-desist letters.¹³ The case was stayed in October 2020 pending the ITC investigation.¹⁴

Qingdao Hollyren

In a parallel Texas case (No. 6:22-cv-00777), Lashify settled with the Chinese manufacturer Qingdao Hollyren. On November 5, 2024, Hollyren stipulated to the validity and enforceability of Lashify’s patents and agreed to stop manufacturing, importing, and selling certain artificial eyelash kits in the United States, as well as to cease supporting third-party sales after fulfilling existing orders.¹⁵

Pro Lash

In January 2024, Lashify sued Pro Lash, Inc. and its founders in the District of Utah (No. 2:24-cv-00016), alleging that its DIY lash system and applicator tools infringed four patents. The amended complaint accused Pro Lash of studying Lashify products to create knock-offs and included a side-by-side comparison of applicator tools.¹⁶

Pro Lash pushed back in January 2025 with a motion to dismiss that accused Lashify of using “intimidation tactics to bully its competitor,” including at a Las Vegas trade show. Pro Lash characterized the lawsuit as harassment, argued the complaint lacked adequate allegations of infringement, and asked in the alternative for a stay pending Lashify’s litigation against Pro Lash’s manufacturer, Hollyren.¹⁷

Interwork Korea

Not every case has been about patents. In April 2025, former supplier Interwork Korea Co. sued Lashify in the Southern District of New York (No. 1:25-cv-02752) over allegedly unpaid bills. Lashify counterclaimed that Interwork had violated a 2020 supply agreement by manufacturing similar products for competitors, including Kiss.³ The case was referred to mediation in January 2026 and discontinued in May 2026.¹⁸

The Bethenny Frankel Incident

In February 2025, Lashify’s enforcement approach became a public flashpoint. After reality television star Bethenny Frankel posted positively about Pro Lash, Lotti messaged her: “you have way too big of a platform and therefore have unfortunately involved yourself in litigation.” Frankel responded with a combative Instagram video telling Lashify to “shove it up [their] ass,” treating the message as a legal threat. Lotti reposted the exchange, said the message was not meant as a threat, and later uploaded an apology video. No legal action was filed against Frankel.¹

1
Kirbie. The Original Lashgate: The Lashify Story
2
Lashify. Sahara Lotti
3
Bloomberg Law. Lashify Wages Global Fight to Protect IP for Celebrity Lashes
4
Lashify. Fighting Counterfeits
5
Fenwick. Fenwick Secures $30.5 Million Jury Verdict for Lashify in Patent Infringement Case
6
Bloomberg Tax. Lashify Wins $30 Million in Artificial Eyelashes Patent Suit
7
Fenwick. Lashify Topic Page
8
Bloomberg Law. Lashify Says $34 Million Win Didn’t Stop Competitor Infringement
9
GovInfo. Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Report and Recommendation
10
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Lashify Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 23-1245
11
USITC. Investigation No. 337-TA-1226
12
Bloomberg Law. Lashify, Hollyren End ITC Dispute After Settlement Agreement
13
The Fashion Law. Lashify Files Patent Infringement Suit Over Dupe Lash Extension Kit
14
Law360. Lashify Inc. v. Kiss Nail Products Inc.
15
Fenwick. Fenwick Secures Settlement for Lashify as Chinese Beauty Company Agrees to Halt Imports in Patent Dispute
16
ExParte AI Lab. Lashify Inc. v. Pro Lash Inc., Analysis
17
Bloomberg Law. Lashify Accused of Bullying Competitor Attorneys in Patent Case
18
CourtListener. Interwork Korea Co. Ltd. v. Lashify Inc.