On August 8, 2025, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (together “Qingdao”) motion to modify a preliminary injunction holding that Qingdao was improperly seeking a “redo.” Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2025).
On June 10, 2025, Plaintiff Lashify, Inc. (“Lashify”) filed a complaint alleging that Qingdao infringed its patent claims directed to false eyelash extension systems and moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) as well as an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Id. at *1–2. That same day, the Court issued a TRO and required Lashify to post a $15,000 bond. Id. at *2.
After the preliminary injunction hearing, Qingdao submitted a letter containing redacted financial figures and requested the Court to set the bond to an amount based on those redacted figures. Id. Although Qingdao also emailed the Court unredacted copies of those financial figures, the Court did not consider them because Qingdao did not follow the proper procedures for filing materials under seal. Accordingly, the Court issued a preliminary injunction order and set the bond at $15,000. Id. Qingdao considered the bond amount too low and filed a motion for modification f the amount. Id. at *3
The Court found that the standard for modifying a preliminary injunction requires the moving party to “show that modification is justified by a significant change in facts or law,” and that the “Second Circuit disapprove[s] [of] the practice of trying to relitigate on a fuller record preliminary injunction issues already decided.” Id. at *3–4. Applying that standard, the Court held that both parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate both the motion for a preliminary injunction and the bond amount, and that Qingdao “squandered” their opportunity to oppose the $15,000 bond by failing to properly submit their financial figures. Id. at *4. The Court found that Qingdao was improperly seeking a “redo” that would require parties to relitigate an issue using evidence that could have been presented previously. As such, the Court denied the motion to modify. Id. at *4–5.
For completeness, the Court reviewed the financial figures that Qingdao submitted and noted that “[i]n a patent infringement case, the Court may base a bond on an estimate of defendant’s potential lost profits and lost market share from an injunction determined to have wrongly issued,” and that “it is appropriate to consider . . . the likelihood that such a conclusion will be reached.” Id. at *5. However, the Court noted that Qingdao did not measure the profits at risk because its sales figures did not account for cost. Id. As such, the Court denied Qingdao’s motion for modification. Id. at *6.
The case is Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2025).
