Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd.

Background

Lashify Inc. sued Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd., also identified by several other names, and Vivicute Limited. Lashify alleged that Defendants infringed its patents covering a false-eyelash extension system. The Court issued a temporary restraining order on June 10, 2025, and later issued a preliminary injunction extending that relief during the case. The Court required Lashify to post a $15,000 bond to cover damages that might result from an improper or wrongful restraint.

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 to increase the bond to a minimum of $10,000,000. They submitted a declaration stating that UCoolMe sold 178,690 allegedly infringing units on Amazon during a specified period, generating $4,509,862.50 in sales, and estimated projected revenue of $18,039,450 over twelve months. The declaration included a webpage snapshot that the Court found unauthenticated and unsupported by information about its reliability.

Lashify argued that Defendants had not met the standard for reconsideration and that their sales information did not establish a basis for a higher bond. The Court later directed the parties to address whether the motion should instead be considered a request to modify the preliminary injunction. Both sides agreed to that treatment.

Court’s Analysis

The Court treated Defendants’ motion as one for modification of the preliminary injunction. A party seeking modification had to show that the change was justified, generally through a significant change in facts or law. Under Rule 65(c), the court has broad discretion to set the amount of security required for a preliminary injunction. The bond is intended to cover damages if the injunction is later determined to have been wrongful.

The Court first held that Defendants were seeking to relitigate an issue already addressed. At the preliminary-injunction hearing, the Court had raised the bond issue and allowed the parties to make additional submissions. Defendants did not properly present the financial figures at that time. The Court therefore held that the motion was properly denied on that ground.

The Court also considered what the result would be if it reviewed the bond amount anew. It held that Defendants’ sales estimate did not account for the costs of making the sales and therefore did not measure the profits Defendants might lose if the injunction were wrongly issued. The estimate did not provide a rational basis for increasing the bond. The Court also considered the low likelihood that the preliminary injunction would later be found wrongful, noting that Defendants had not shown a substantial question about the validity of Lashify’s patents at the preliminary-injunction stage.

Disposition

The Court denied the motion for modification and/or reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 47. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order.