Lashify Inc v. Qingdao Network Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lashify, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: QINGDAO NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD d/b/a UCOOLME and Vivicute Ltd (China/Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Epstein Drangel LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04183, S.D.N.Y., 05/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendants are said to conduct, transact, and/or solicit business in New York, including by targeting and shipping products to consumers in the district through online storefronts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's do-it-yourself (DIY) artificial lash extension kits infringe two of Plaintiff's utility patents and two design patents related to lash clusters designed for application underneath a user's natural eyelashes.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns consumer-applied lash extension systems that aim to provide a professional, salon-quality appearance through the use of pre-fabricated lash clusters, as an alternative to traditional strip lashes or one-by-one professional application.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior litigation against a different entity (Worldbeauty), a jury found U.S. Patent No. 11,253,020 to be valid and willfully infringed. This is the Second Amended Complaint in this action, with the original complaint having been filed in May 2025.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-07-28	Earliest Priority Date for '020 and '290 Patents
2017-01-01	Lashify founded
2021-01-27	Earliest Priority Date for '374 Design Patent
2022-02-22	'020 Patent Issued
2022-09-29	Filing Date for '333 Design Patent
2023-06-13	'333 Design Patent Issued
2023-12-26	'374 Design Patent Issued
2024-08-23	Jury verdict in prior Lashify v. Worldbeauty litigation
2024-12-24	'290 Patent Issued
2025-05-01	Original Complaint Filed (approx. date)
2025-06-01	First Amended Complaint Filed (approx. date)
2026-05-13	Second Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,253,020 - "Artificial Lash Extensions", Issued Feb. 22, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes conventional eyelash extension methods as either time-consuming and expensive (one-by-one professional application) or unnatural-looking and uncomfortable (consumer-applied strip lashes) US11253020B2, col. 1:24-54
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a lash extension system where multiple small clusters of artificial hairs are pre-fused together using heat to form a "lash fusion" or bundle US 11,253,020 B2, col. 2:61-64 A set of these bundles can then be applied by a consumer in a single motion to the underside of their natural lashes, intended to offer a faster and more natural-looking alternative to existing methods US 11,253,020 B2, abstract US 11,253,020 B2, FIG. 3A
• Technical Importance: This manufacturing method of heat-fusing clusters into larger, seamlessly connected bundles enabled the creation of a new category of DIY lash systems that could be quickly applied by consumers at home Compl. ¶¶8-9

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 5-6 Compl. ¶49
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • An artificial lash extension system comprising a plurality of lash extensions designed for attachment at an underside of natural lashes.
  • Each lash extension comprises a plurality of clusters, with each cluster having at least two artificial hairs.
  • Each lash extension also comprises a base from which the artificial hairs protrude.
  • At least some of the artificial hairs are connected to one another at the base by "at least an application of heat."

U.S. Patent No. 12,171,290 - "Artificial Lash Extensions", Issued Dec. 24, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '020 Patent, the background describes the drawbacks of existing lash application methods, including the time, cost, and skill required for one-by-one application and the unnatural look of strip lashes US12171290B2, col. 1:47- col. 2:2
• The Patented Solution: This invention details a lash extension system built upon a "knotless base," which can be a "base string or fiber" US 12,171,290 B2, col. 9:40-42 Clusters of artificial hairs are joined to this base using a "first adhesive." The entire extension is then designed to be attached by a user to the underside of their natural lashes using a "second adhesive" US 12,171,290 B2, abstract
• Technical Importance: The use of a "knotless base" aims to create a lighter and more seamless bond with the natural lash line, improving comfort and appearance compared to traditional lash clusters that may have more visible knots or thicker bands Compl. ¶10

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 7-8 Compl. ¶57
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • An artificial lash extension system comprising a plurality of lash extensions.
  • Each extension comprises a "knotless base."
  • Each extension further comprises a plurality of clusters of two or more artificial hairs.
  • A "first adhesive" joins the ends of the clusters to the knotless base.
  • The knotless bases are designed for attachment to the underside of natural eyelashes with a "second adhesive."

Multi-Patent Capsule: Design Patents

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,009,374 ("'374 Patent"), "Artificial Lash Extension", Issued December 26, 2023 Compl. p. 9

• Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for an artificial lash extension cluster. The design features a distinct, repeating crisscross pattern of synthetic hairs that creates a flared, multi-layered appearance.

• Asserted Claims: The ornamental design for an artificial lash extension as shown and described in the patent's figures Compl. p. 9

• Accused Features: Defendant's "Fairy Lash" product is alleged to be substantially the same in appearance as the design claimed in the '374 Patent Compl. p. 9 Compl. ¶18

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D989,333 ("'333 Patent"), "Artificial Lash Extension", Issued June 13, 2023 Compl. p. 10

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a different style of artificial lash extension cluster. The design features a wispy, less uniform arrangement of hairs with varied lengths, creating a feathery and textured appearance.

• Asserted Claims: The ornamental design for an artificial lash extension as shown and described in the patent's figures Compl. p. 10

• Accused Features: Defendant's "Aphrodite Lash" product is alleged to be substantially the same in appearance as the design claimed in the '333 Patent Compl. p. 10 Compl. ¶18

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are identified as "Infringing Products," which include "DIY cluster lashes kit" and individual lash styles sold by Defendants under the UCOOLME and VIVICUTE brands Compl. p. 1 Compl. ¶41 Specific accused products named are the "Fairy Lash" and "Aphrodite Lash" (Compl. pp. 9-10).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are lash extension systems marketed for application under the natural lash line Compl. ¶42 They are sold as kits that include lash clusters, an applicator, and a "bond + seal" adhesive product Compl. ¶41 The complaint alleges the lashes are made of synthetic PBT fibers on a "knotless base" and are manufactured by attaching the clusters to the base using heat Compl. ¶42 The complaint includes a visual from the Defendant's product marketing that labels components including a "knotless base" and "Adhesive/Glue" Compl. p. 8 The separately sold "bond + seal" is alleged to function as a "second adhesive" for attaching the extensions to the user's natural lashes Compl. ¶43

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides an annotated diagram of an accused product that maps its features to the patent's claims Compl. p. 8 Another visual provides photographic evidence allegedly showing the effects of heat manufacturing on the accused product Compl. p. 9

U.S. Patent No. 11,253,020 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a plurality of lash extensions designed to attach adjacent to one another at an underside of natural lashes...	The accused products are marketed as a "Kit" of "Cluster Lashes" that are applied adjacent to one another on the underside of natural lashes.	¶49	col. 9:7-10
a plurality of clusters of artificial hairs, each of the plurality of clusters comprising at least two artificial hairs; and	The accused lash extensions are comprised of groupings of synthetic PBT hairs that form a plurality of clusters, each having at least two hairs.	¶49	col. 9:11-14
a base from which the at least two artificial hairs of each of the plurality of clusters protrude...	The accused lash extensions have a base, described as an "Invisible Band," from which the hair clusters protrude.	¶49	col. 9:15-17
wherein at least some of the artificial hairs are connected to one another at a respective part of the base by at least an application of heat.	The complaint alleges, based on inspection and a prior litigation, that the clusters are connected to the base by heat. A provided image is annotated "Melting visible from heating."	¶49; ¶37; p. 9	col. 4:46-48

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A key factual dispute may center on whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant's manufacturing process involves "at least an application of heat" to connect the lash clusters to the base. The complaint's allegation rests on "information and belief," analysis of product samples, and an annotated photograph Compl. ¶37 Compl. p. 9, the basis of which will likely be contested.

U.S. Patent No. 12,171,290 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a knotless base;	The accused products are advertised to include and allegedly possess a "knotless base," which the complaint illustrates with an annotated photo labeling an "Invisible Band" as the "knotless base."	¶57; p. 8	col. 9:40-42
a plurality of clusters of two or more artificial hairs; and	The accused products are comprised of clusters of two or more artificial hairs made from PBT synthetic material.	¶57	col. 3:35-36
a first adhesive that joins ends of the plurality of clusters to the knotless base;	The complaint alleges the accused products use a "first adhesive, i.e. glue," to join the hair clusters to the knotless base, supported by an annotated product image.	¶57; p. 8	col. 4:55-62
wherein the knotless bases of the plurality of lash extensions are designed to attach to an underside of natural eyelashes of an eye with a second adhesive.	The accused products are marketed for application to the underside of natural lashes using a "second adhesive," which is allegedly the "Lash Bond and Seal" product sold by Defendant.	¶57; ¶58	col. 5:50-54

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A central issue may be whether the term "knotless base" will be construed to cover the accused product's "Invisible Band." Defendant may argue that the patent's description of a "base string or fiber" '290 Patent, col. 9:40-42 limits the scope of this term to exclude the specific structure of the accused product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the '020 Patent: "at least an application of heat"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of claim 1. Infringement will depend on whether the plaintiff can prove the accused products are made using a heat-based process, as opposed to being purely adhesive-based. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the type of manufacturing evidence required to prove infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim phrase "at least an application of heat" suggests any use of heat in the connection process is sufficient US 11,253,020 B2, claim 1 The specification supports this by mentioning a "hot melt method" and "heat seal process" as examples of fusing clusters together US 11,253,020 B2, col. 2:53-54 US 11,253,020 B2, col. 3:9
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term requires a process that achieves a specific "fusion" where artificial hairs "begin to melt" and connect, as described in the specification US 11,253,020 B2, col. 7:45-48 This could be argued to exclude processes where heat is used merely to cure an adhesive without melting the lash fibers themselves.

Term from the '290 Patent: "knotless base"

• Context and Importance: This term is a key structural element of claim 1 of the '290 Patent. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the band of the accused product falls within the scope of "knotless base" as understood in the context of the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined in the patent, which may support giving it a broad, plain, and ordinary meaning as any base that does not contain knots. The complaint's labeling of the accused product's thin band as "knotless" suggests this is the interpretation Plaintiff will advance Compl. p. 8
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples, stating the knotless base may comprise a "base string or fiber" US 12,171,290 B2, col. 9:40-42 and that in some embodiments hairs can be tied to a "support thread" US 12,171,290 B2, col. 4:30-33 A defendant might argue that these specific embodiments limit the term to a thread-like structure, as opposed to a flattened, fused band.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by marketing the products for the infringing use and providing instructions to end-users to cut the lash strips into smaller extensions for application, which allegedly constitutes direct infringement of the system claims Compl. ¶50 Compl. ¶58 It is also alleged that Defendants encourage manufacturers to produce the infringing products Compl. ¶50 Compl. ¶58
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint claims Defendants had actual knowledge of the patents since at least the filing of the original complaint in May 2025 (for the utility patents) and the first amended complaint in June 2025 (for the design patents) Compl. ¶53 Compl. ¶61 Compl. ¶67 The claims are further supported by allegations of blatant copying of Lashify's patented products and constructive notice via product marking Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶53

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core evidentiary question will be one of manufacturing process: Can Lashify produce sufficient evidence to prove that the accused UCOOLME lash clusters are attached to their base using "at least an application of heat," as required by the '020 patent, or are they made using a different method, such as a purely adhesive-based one?
• A central issue of claim construction will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "knotless base" from the '290 patent, which is described in the specification with examples like a "support thread" or "fiber," be construed broadly enough to encompass the "Invisible Band" structure of the accused products?
• A key question for the design patent claims will be the "ordinary observer" test: From the perspective of an ordinary purchaser of eyelash extensions, are the ornamental designs of the accused "Fairy Lash" and "Aphrodite Lash" products substantially the same as those claimed in the '374 and '333 patents, respectively?