Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Lashify v. Qingdao Lashbeauty: Eyelash Extension Patent Verdict | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID6:22-cv-00776
FiledJul 2022
ClosedSep 2024
Patent Litigation

Lashify v. Qingdao Lashbeauty: $34M Willful Infringement Verdict in DIY Lash Extension Battle

Lashify, Inc. secured a unanimous jury verdict of $34,098,049 against Chinese manufacturer Qingdao Lashbeauty (Worldbeauty) for willful infringement of three US eyelash extension patents. Tried before Judge Alan Albright in the Western District of Texas, the 804-day case ended with Worldbeauty’s invalidity defences rejected in full and a permanent injunction motion pending.

Resolution time
804days
804 days — above average for a W.D. Tex. patent case reaching jury trial
Patents asserted
5
US11219260, US11253020, US11234472 — segmented lash ribbon and DIY eyelash extension technology
Outcome
Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff
Jury verdict for Lashify; willful infringement found; invalidity defences rejected
Cost ruling
Fees Pending
Exceptional case and attorney fees motions triggered by willfulness finding
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Case at a glance
Case no.6:22-cv-00776
PlaintiffLashify, Inc.
CourtTexas Western
JudgeAlan D Albright
FiledJuly 12, 2022
ClosedSeptember 23, 2024
Duration804 days
OutcomeJudgment on the merits for Plaintiff
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisJudgment on the merits for Plaintiff
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 804 days

804 days — above average for a W.D. Tex. patent case reaching jury trial

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 12 2022, AUG–SEP — 804 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Lashify, Inc. v Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. JUL 12 2022 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings SEP 23 2024 Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff 804 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Jury finds willful infringement: what the $34M verdict means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Unanimous jury verdict — willfulness elevates the stakes

A unanimous jury found Worldbeauty directly infringed specific claims of three Lashify patents and determined that infringement was willful. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, a willfulness finding opens the door to enhanced damages of up to three times the compensatory award. The court has yet to rule on enhancement, attorney fees, and a permanent injunction — meaning the $34M figure may not be the ceiling.

Willful infringement found
Patent holder outcome

Lashify secures $34M base award with further upside possible

Lashify prevailed on all three asserted patent claims and successfully defeated Worldbeauty’s obviousness and anticipation invalidity arguments. The base damages award covers infringement through November 2023; supplemental damages for the period to August 2024 verdict are also sought. A pending permanent injunction motion could bar Worldbeauty’s accused products from the US market entirely, significantly strengthening Lashify’s competitive position.

Base award + injunction pending
Defendant outcome

Worldbeauty faces potential treble damages and market exclusion

Worldbeauty’s invalidity defence — centred on obviousness and anticipation by prior art — was rejected in full by the jury. With a willfulness finding on record, Worldbeauty faces post-trial motions for enhanced damages, attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and a permanent injunction. The accounting requirement for post-November 2023 sales exposes further damages liability before any enhancement multiplier is applied.

Treble damages risk; injunction exposure
Commercial implications

Lashify patents validated — risk elevated for DIY lash extension market

The jury’s rejection of all invalidity arguments strengthens the enforceability of Lashify’s eyelash extension patent portfolio against other competitors. Retailers stocking competing segmented lash ribbon products and rival brands sourcing from Chinese manufacturers should treat this verdict as a meaningful signal. The willfulness finding suggests the jury viewed Worldbeauty as a knowing infringer, raising the bar for any future competitor to plead innocent infringement.

Portfolio strength confirmed
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 6:22-cv-00776 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffLashify, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantQingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAndrew AlexanderAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBryan A. KohmAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDaniel J. EmamAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDeron R. DacusAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEric Arthur MenistAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJ. David HaddenAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJeffrey WareAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJessica L. BenzlerAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan G. TamimiAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan Thomas McMichaelAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMark Wallace McdougallAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMelanie L. MayerAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSaina S. ShamilovAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselShannon Elizabeth TurnerAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTodd TuckerAttorneyCounsel for Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmCalfee Halter & Griswold LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmFenwick & West LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmThe Dacus Firm PCLaw FirmRepresenting Lashify, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselB. Russell HortonAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBrett L. FosterAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselConnor Joe HansenAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEmily Martin-ShakyaAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselErin C. KolterAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselGeoffrey Mark GodfreyAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselHui ShenAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn M. CaracappaAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn William TothAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselLi GuoAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMark A. MillerAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMatthew BathonAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselPaige Arnette AmstutzAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselPayton Elizabeth GeorgeAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRobert Pierce EarleAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSarani Rangarajan MillicanAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselTamara KapaloskiAttorneyCounsel for Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmBunsow DeMory LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmDorsey & Whitney LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmGeorge, Brothers, Kincaid & Horton LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmScott Douglass & McConnico LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmSteptoe & Johnson, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Alan D AlbrightJudgeTexas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This action came before the Court for trial by jury commencing on August 19, 2024 between Plaintiff Lashify, Inc. (“Lashify”) and Defendant Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd. d/b/a Worldbeauty (“Worldbeauty”). The issues have been tried and the jury rendered its unanimous verdict on August 23, 2024 (Dkt. No. 313). Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the jury’s verdict and the entirety of the record, the Court hereby ORDERS and ENTERS JUDGMENT as follows: 1. Worldbeauty has directly infringed claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,219,260 (the ’260 patent), claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,253,020 (the ’020 patent), and claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,234,472 (the ’472 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”). 2. Worldbeauty’s direct infringement of the Asserted Claims was willful. 3. Worldbeauty has failed to prove the Asserted Claims are invalid as obvious in light of the prior art or as anticipated by prior art. 4. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Lashify and against Worldbeauty in the sum of $34,098,049 for Worldbeauty’s infringement of the Asserted Claims through November 5, 2023. 5. Worldbeauty shall provide an accounting for sales of the Accused Products for the period of November 6, 2023 until the jury’s verdict on August 23, 2024 no later than two weeks after entry of this Judgment. 6. Briefing on Lashify’s motion for a permanent injunction will proceed according to the parties’ stipulated schedule. See Dkt. No. 324. 7. With the exception of the deadlines for a permanent injunction motion set forth above, this Judgment starts the time for filing any post-trial motions or appeal including but not limited to: bill of costs; renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and/or new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and 59; motions to amend the judgment; motions for the award of supplemental damages, enhanced damages, and pre- and postjudgment interest; motions for an exceptional case finding and the award of attorney’s fees; and any other motions for equitable relief that may be just and proper. All such motions shall be filed within 28 days of entry of this Judgment. 8. Any other relief requested by either party which is now pending before the Court and not specifically awarded or addressed herein is DENIED.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 6:22-cv-00776, Texas Western District Court

The jury’s verdict is unusually comprehensive: it finds direct infringement of specific claims across three patents, affirmatively rejects both obviousness and anticipation invalidity arguments, and characterises the infringement as willful. The verdict text expressly orders an accounting for post-November 2023 sales, signalling that the $34,098,049 award is a floor, not a ceiling. The willfulness finding is particularly significant — courts have discretion to enhance damages up to threefold under § 284, and the pending exceptional-case motion under § 285 puts attorney fees in play. The injunction briefing schedule suggests Judge Albright has not yet foreclosed equitable relief.

PACER case 6:22-cv-00776 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11219260, US11253020 & US11234472 — DIY segmented eyelash extension technology

Publication No.US11234472B2
Application No.US16/556518
Patent details
Productsegmented lash ribbon eyelash extension systems and attachment methods
Cited in actionJuly 12, 2022

Publication No.US11253020B2
Application No.US17/342355
Patent details
ProductDIY eyelash extension applicator and bonding technology
Cited in actionJuly 12, 2022

Publication No.US11219260B2
Application No.US17/003853
Patent details
Productsegmented ribbon lash cosmetic extension systems
Cited in actionJuly 12, 2022

Publication No.US11330855B2
Application No.US16/883925
Patent details
Producteyelash extension bond and cosmetic lash attachment methods
Cited in actionJuly 12, 2022

Publication No.US11330856B2
Application No.US17/003874
Patent details
Productsegmented lash ribbon formulations and flexible band extensions
Cited in actionJuly 12, 2022

The three patents adjudicated at trial — US11234472, US11253020, and US11219260 — cover segmented lash ribbon technology used in at-home eyelash extension systems. The application dates (filed 2019–2021) place them squarely in the rapid expansion of the consumer DIY lash extension market. The asserted claims (claim 3 of the ‘260, claim 6 of the ‘020, claim 15 of the ‘472) survived validity challenges based on both anticipation and obviousness over prior art, suggesting meaningful claim differentiation from predecessor products.

Two additional Lashify patents — US11330855 and US11330856 — were also listed among the patents involved but were not the subject of the jury’s infringement findings. The validated three-patent core, combined with the surviving portfolio, gives Lashify a layered enforcement posture in a segment dominated by Chinese ODM manufacturers. Any brand relying on Worldbeauty-style segmented ribbon architecture should treat these patents as active enforcement assets with demonstrated litigation support.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against Lashify’s eyelash extension patent portfolio?

Any company manufacturing, importing, or retailing segmented lash ribbon products, DIY eyelash extension kits, or superfine band lash extensions in the US market should prioritise a freedom-to-operate analysis against Lashify’s portfolio. The willful infringement finding against Worldbeauty — and the pending injunction — demonstrate that Lashify is an aggressive enforcer. A private-label brand sourcing from Chinese ODMs is particularly exposed if its supply chain overlaps with Worldbeauty’s product architecture.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the asserted claims of US11219260, US11253020, and US11234472, flag the two remaining portfolio patents (US11330855, US11330856), and surface design-around pathways before you face a cease-and-desist. Eureka’s claim chart generation and prior art landscaping tools are purpose-built for exactly this post-verdict competitive intelligence need.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11234472B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar eyelash extension and beauty-tech patent cases in US district courts

Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving cosmetic extension technology and DIY beauty products litigated in US district courts, particularly W.D. Texas.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Lashify, Inc. patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, Lashify, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Lashify v. Qingdao (ITC 337)Beauty-tech willful infringementW.D. Tex. cosmetic patent verdictsChinese ODM enforcement actions
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this verdict signals for the DIY beauty and eyelash extension IP landscape

A $34M willful infringement verdict against a Chinese ODM supplier signals that US eyelash extension patents carry real enforcement teeth.

Willfulness finding triggers post-trial exposure well beyond base damages

The jury’s willfulness finding means Lashify can seek up to $102M in enhanced damages under § 284, plus attorney fees. Competitors in the lash extension space should review their freedom-to-operate posture now — a final judgment including injunction and enhancement would set a powerful deterrent precedent across the DIY beauty segment.

Invalidity arguments rejected: Lashify’s claims survive prior art challenge

Worldbeauty mounted obviousness and anticipation defences and lost both. This outcome increases confidence in the claim scope of US11219260, US11253020, and US11234472. Any competitor currently selling segmented lash extension products in the US should treat these claims as presumptively valid and enforceable, making design-around analysis a commercial priority.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock enhanced damages modelling, injunction risk scenarios, and portfolio mapping for the DIY eyelash extension sector from this W.D. Tex. jury verdict.
Enhanced damages forecastInjunction scenario analysisPortfolio gap mapping
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Lashify v Qingdao — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Protect your position in the DIY eyelash extension market

With a $34M willful infringement verdict and a permanent injunction pending, Lashify’s patent portfolio is one of the most active enforcement risks in the beauty-tech space. Run an FTO against US11219260, US11253020, and US11234472 in PatSnap Eureka before your next product launch.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.