Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 MARCH 2025

Federal Circuit Broadens ITC Economic Prong

K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Contributor
K&L Gates

K&L Gates

The Firm K&L Gates is an integrated, international law firm. As a single global law firm, truly...

View firm profile
Explore more from K&L Gates

In the recent decision of Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the long-standing approach concerning the interpretation.

United StatesIntellectual Property

In the recent decision of Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the long-standing approach concerning the interpretation of the domestic-industry requirement under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complainant, an American company importing eyelash extensions from international manufacturers, which alleged that certain other importers were infringing on its patents.

The central legal issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of the "economic prong" of the domestic-industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(B). Specifically, the panel examined whether significant employment of labor or capital related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution could satisfy the economic prong, even in the absence of domestic manufacturing.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from