DCT
2:25-cv-02793
KISS Nail Products Inc v. Ardell Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: KISS Nail Products, Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: Ardell International, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker Botts L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02793, C.D. Cal., 03/31/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business and a substantial warehouse facility within the district, from which it allegedly directs infringing activities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pre-glued, do-it-yourself eyelash extension products infringe a patent related to ready-to-use artificial eyelashes with adhesive applied directly to the lash filaments.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the do-it-yourself (DIY) consumer cosmetics market, specifically aiming to simplify the application of false eyelashes by eliminating the need for users to handle and apply separate adhesives.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges its own competing products have been marked "patent pending" since December 2022. The complaint also alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patent-in-suit's impending issuance as of its Notice of Allowance in October 2024 and received a direct notice of infringement via letter on March 20, 2025, eleven days before the complaint was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-08-21 | '288 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-12-01 | Plaintiff begins marking its products "patent pending" |
| 2024-10-30 | '288 Patent Notice of Allowance issued |
| 2024-12-24 | '288 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-03-20 | Defendant allegedly notified of infringement via letter |
| 2025-03-31 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,171,288 - READY-TO-USE EYELASH EXTENSIONS, issued December 24, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that conventional do-it-yourself eyelash extension systems require the user to purchase and apply a separate, specialized adhesive to either their own lashes or the artificial lash strip, a process which can be difficult and messy. ('288 Patent, col. 1:42-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an artificial eyelash system that is "ready to use" out of the package because it includes a pre-applied adhesive element. ('288 Patent, col. 2:55-61). Crucially, the adhesive is disposed not just on the main support band but also extends "along a length of the eyelash filaments" themselves. ('288 Patent, col. 12:40-41). This configuration is designed to allow the filaments to adhere directly to the user's natural lashes at a position spaced away from the eyelid, thereby reducing potential skin irritation associated with traditional lash glues. ('288 Patent, col. 2:16-22; Fig. 3A).
- Technical Importance: This design sought to create a more convenient and user-friendly product by eliminating the separate, often challenging, step of applying liquid adhesive during the beauty routine. ('288 Patent, col. 2:58-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 56).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- An artificial eyelash extension system comprising:
- a plurality of eyelash filaments, each having a base and a tip;
- a support strip attached to the bases of the eyelash filaments; and
- an adhesive element connected to the support strip and applied to the plurality of the eyelash filaments before the system is packaged for sale;
- wherein the adhesive element is adapted to adhere to a user's natural eyelashes; and
- wherein the adhesive element extends from the support strip along a length of the eyelash filaments.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names two lines of accused products: "Ardell Professional Press On Pre-Glued Underlash Extensions" and "Winks by Ardell Press On Lash" products. (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are described as "pre-glued" eyelash clusters sold directly to consumers in a variety of styles ("Naked," "Fauxmink," "Wispies"), volumes, and lengths (e.g., 8 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, 14 mm). (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 34, 38). The complaint provides an image showing that certain products are provided in specially designed left ("L") and right ("R") configurations for the inner eye. (Compl. ¶ 35). The complaint alleges these products feature an adhesive that is applied to a support strip and also extends onto the eyelash filaments themselves. (Compl. ¶ 44). The products are intended to be applied by the user to the underside of their natural eyelashes. (Compl. ¶ 57).
- Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a direct competitor in the "DIY lash market" and that the Accused Products "compete head-to-head" with Plaintiff's own "imPRESS Falsies" product line. (Compl. ¶¶ 50-51).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'288 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An artificial eyelash extension system comprising: a plurality of eyelash filaments, each having a base and a tip; | The complaint alleges that "each of the 'pre-glued' clusters of the Accused Products include a plurality of eyelash filaments, each having a base and a tip." | ¶41 | col. 4:10-12 |
| a support strip attached to the bases of the eyelash filaments; | The complaint alleges that "Each of the 'pre-glued' clusters of the Accused Products has a support strip attached to the bases of the plurality of eyelash filaments." | ¶42 | col. 4:46-48 |
| an adhesive element connected to the support strip and applied to the plurality of the eyelash filaments before... packaged for sale | The complaint alleges the products are sold as "pre-glued," which implies the adhesive is applied before packaging. (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 43). An image is provided showing the alleged adhesive on the accused products. (Compl. ¶ 45). The complaint asserts this adhesive connects to the support strip and is applied to the filaments. (Compl. ¶ 44). | ¶¶43-45 | col. 2:23-28 |
| wherein the adhesive element is adapted to adhere to natural eyelashes of the user when the artificial eyelash extension system is applied... | The complaint alleges that the adhesive on the Accused Products is "adapted to adhere the 'pre-glued' clusters to the natural eyelashes of a user." (Compl. ¶ 43). The complaint includes images of the packaging with instructions directing users to apply the clusters to their natural lashes. (Compl. ¶ 57). | ¶43, ¶57 | col. 2:15-18 |
| wherein the adhesive element extends from the support strip along a length of the eyelash filaments. | The complaint alleges that "adhesive is applied not only to the support strip... but also to portions of the plurality of the eyelash filaments in a direction extending away from the support strip, along a length of the eyelash filaments." (Compl. ¶ 44). This allegation is supported by a close-up photograph of an accused product showing a substance (labeled "Adhesive") appearing on both the base band and the lower portion of the individual filaments. (Compl. ¶ 45). | ¶44-45 | col. 12:40-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of "extends from the support strip along a length of the eyelash filaments." A central question is whether this requires a discrete, intentionally-formed adhesive element on the filament body, separate from the adhesive on the support strip, or if it can be read to cover adhesive that may have incidentally wicked or spread from the support strip onto the base of the filaments during manufacturing.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the adhesive is applied to the Accused Products. The complaint's photograph suggests adhesive is present on the filaments (Compl. ¶ 45), but evidence from the manufacturing process will be needed to determine if this placement is intentional, consistent, and functional in the manner required by the claim, or an unavoidable and inconsistent artifact of applying adhesive to the support strip.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "extends from the support strip along a length of the eyelash filaments"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the primary point of novelty over prior art that only applied adhesive to a support strip. The entire infringement case may depend on the scope of this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the specific location and configuration of the pre-applied adhesive, which distinguishes the patented invention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify a minimum distance or a particular shape for the extension. The specification also describes embodiments with "discrete droplets of adhesive" on the filaments, which could be argued to support a less-structured or non-continuous application. ('288 Patent, col. 4:37-38).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly distinguishes itself from systems where adhesive is only on a "lash line strip." ('288 Patent, col. 1:26-28). Embodiments like Figure 1B depict a distinct, continuous band of adhesive (32) extending a substantial distance up the filaments (14) from the support strip, suggesting an intentional and structurally significant feature rather than incidental contact. This could support a narrower reading that requires a deliberate and continuous application of adhesive along the filament body itself.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides packaging with "detailed instructions, demonstrations, and support materials" that direct customers to apply the Accused Products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 56-57). An image of these "How to Apply" instructions is included in the complaint. (Compl. p. 19). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating the products are a material part of the invention, are not a staple article of commerce, and are especially made for an infringing use. (Compl. ¶ 58).
Willful Infringement
The willfulness claim is based on alleged knowledge from multiple sources. Plaintiff alleges Defendant knew or should have known of its patent rights due to: (1) Plaintiff's "patent pending" marking on its competing products since December 2022; (2) Defendant's alleged duty to monitor patent filings, especially after a Notice of Allowance was issued in October 2024; and (3) an actual notice letter sent to Defendant on March 20, 2025. (Compl. ¶¶ 59-60).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation "extends from the support strip along a length of the eyelash filaments" be satisfied by the adhesive configuration on the accused products? The court's construction of this phrase—whether it requires a discrete, intentionally-formed adhesive structure on the filaments or can be met by adhesive that spreads from the support band—will be critical.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of manufacturing process: does the defendant’s manufacturing process intentionally and consistently apply adhesive "along a length of the eyelash filaments" in a manner that performs the claimed function, or is the adhesive presence shown in the complaint's photographic evidence an inconsistent artifact of a process focused only on applying adhesive to the support strip?