ITC

Uncategorized

Podcast

Introduction The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential opinion in the case of Lashify, Inc. vs. the International Trade Commission (ITC), decided on March 5, 2025. This case, involving multiple intervenors, highlights significant issues around trade practices and intellectual property rights, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal discussions around these topics. Details Appeal No. 2023-1245 deals with Lashify, Inc., the appellant, as they challenge a decision involving the International Trade Commission, appellee, and several intervenors including major cosmetic and retail companies. The court’s decision, documented in a precedential opinion, emphasizes the importance of precise language and interpretation in legal documents. The errata issued on March 13, 2025, makes specific corrections to the original document, indicating a rigorous process of review and accuracy maintenance. Key changes include adjustments to wording for clarity, such as changing “referred” to “refers” and “labor or capital” to “labor and capital,” ensuring the document’s precision and comprehensibility.    

Uncategorized

Navigating the March 2025 Decision: Lashify, Inc. vs. International Trade Commission

Introduction The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential opinion in the case of Lashify, Inc. vs. the International Trade Commission (ITC), decided on March 5, 2025. This case, involving multiple intervenors, highlights significant issues around trade practices and intellectual property rights, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal discussions around these topics. Details Appeal No. 2023-1245 deals with Lashify, Inc., the appellant, as they challenge a decision involving the International Trade Commission, appellee, and several intervenors including major cosmetic and retail companies. The court’s decision, documented in a precedential opinion, emphasizes the importance of precise language and interpretation in legal documents. The errata issued on March 13, 2025, makes specific corrections to the original document, indicating a rigorous process of review and accuracy maintenance. Key changes include adjustments to wording for clarity, such as changing “referred” to “refers” and “labor or capital” to “labor and capital,” ensuring the document’s precision and comprehensibility.

Uncategorized

United States Court of Appeals Announces Changes in Precedential Opinion on Lashify Inc. vs. International Trade Commission

# United States Court of Appeals Announces Changes in Precedential Opinion In a recent development, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an errata pertaining to the Appeal No. 2023-1245 case. The appellant in the case is Lashify Inc., while the appellee is the International Trade Commission. Several intervenors are also involved in the case, including Qingdao Hollyren Cosmetics Co. Ltd., Kiss Nail Products Inc., Walmart, Inc., CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and others. The errata, filed on March 13, 2025, for a decision made on March 5, 2025, contains the following changes: – On page 19, line 29, the term “referred” should be changed to “refers”. – On page 24, lines 6–7, the phrase “labor or capital” should be changed to “labor and capital”. – On page 24, line 24, the term “reports” should be changed to “statements”. – On page 26, line 5, the phrase “and on” should be changed to “but on”. These changes, while potentially minor in other contexts, are significant in the legal world, potentially changing the interpretation and impact of the original ruling.

Scroll to Top