Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hexin Holding Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: Luxe Curve and the Individual and/or Entity Operating Luxe Curve (Foreign Jurisdiction)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-02587, N.D. Ill., 03/26/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is believed to be a foreign entity engaged in infringing activities directed at the district, including offering to sell, selling, and importing products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's e-commerce sales of shapewear products infringe a U.S. design patent and separately infringe Plaintiff's copyrights.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the direct-to-consumer apparel market, specifically concerning the ornamental design of women's shapewear and support garments.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is an Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges the Defendant operates under aliases to conceal its identity, suggesting that identifying the responsible party may be a procedural focus.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-03-04	U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333 Priority Date
2021-10-19	U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333 Issues
2026-03-26	Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333 - "Shaped support belt"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333, titled "Shaped support belt," issued on October 19, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D933,333 patent does not describe a technical problem or functional solution. Instead, it protects the unique, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, which the complaint identifies as women's shapewear Compl. ¶5
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "shaped support belt" D933,333 Patent, claim The design, depicted in the patent's figures, consists of a wide, hourglass-shaped main body with a large rectangular front closure panel and what appear to be two sets of adjustable overlaying straps D933,333 Patent, FIG. 1 D933,333 Patent, FIG. 8 The claimed design also includes stitching, which is depicted in broken lines and explicitly forms part of the design D933,333 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: The design's importance is commercial and aesthetic rather than technical. The complaint alleges that products embodying the "Hexin Design" are "recognized and adored by consumers" as a result of significant marketing and promotional efforts Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶12

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described" D933,333 Patent, claim
• The claimed ornamental features, as depicted in the patent's drawings, include:
  • The overall hourglass-like silhouette of the belt.
  • The proportions and placement of a rectangular front closure panel.
  • The configuration of multiple horizontal bands at the top and bottom.
  • The specific pattern of stitching shown in broken lines throughout the belt.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "shapewear products" and "Infringing Products" sold by the Defendant Compl. ¶1

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are sold through "Internet based e-commerce stores" and "fully interactive commercial Internet websites" operating under various seller aliases Compl. ¶1 The complaint alleges these products are offered to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois Compl. ¶22 Plaintiff alleges the Defendant sells these products at "below-market prices" Compl. ¶17

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed, element-by-element infringement allegations. It pleads infringement in a conclusory manner, stating that "Defendant sells, offers for sale, and/or imports into the United States for subsequent sale or use products that infringe upon the Hexin Design without authorization" Compl. ¶31

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The central issue in a design patent case is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. As the complaint provides no images of the accused products, this factual comparison cannot be analyzed.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on the overall visual appearance of the accused products compared to the drawings of the '333 Patent. A key question for the court will be whether the visual impression created by the accused products is substantially the same as the claimed design, taking into account the belt's overall shape, the arrangement of its panels and straps, and its surface ornamentation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings as a whole, and construction of specific text-based terms is rare. The analysis focuses on the overall visual impression of the patented design.

• The Term: "Shaped support belt" (from the patent title).
• Context and Importance: While not a claim term in the traditional sense, the title helps define the article of manufacture to which the design applies. This could become relevant if the Defendant argues its product is a different article of manufacture and therefore cannot infringe. Practitioners may focus on this to understand the general scope and context of the claimed design.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself is for "the ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described," which suggests the scope is defined by the visual elements in the drawings, not limited by a narrow definition of "belt" D933,333 Patent, claim
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent use of the term "shaped support belt" in the title and claim could be argued to limit the design's application strictly to articles that function as such, potentially excluding other types of garments D933,333 Patent, Title D933,333 Patent, claim

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect patent infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The infringement count focuses on direct infringement through acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶31
• Willful Infringement: The patent infringement count does not explicitly use the word "willful" Compl. ¶¶29-33 However, the complaint alleges that "Defendant is aware of Hexin Products" Compl. ¶19 and the Prayer for Relief seeks enhanced damages of up to three times the compensatory award pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, which is the statutory basis for enhancement often predicated on a finding of willful infringement Prayer for Relief ¶4

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: would an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, find the design of the accused shapewear to be substantially the same as the ornamental design depicted in the figures of the '333 Patent? The resolution of this question will depend entirely on a visual comparison of the accused product with the patent drawings.
2. A significant procedural question will be one of defendant identification: can the Plaintiff successfully identify and establish jurisdiction over the specific legal entity responsible for the alleged infringement, given the allegations that the Defendant operates through "one or more Seller Aliases to conceal its identity" in foreign jurisdictions with "lax intellectual property enforcement systems" Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶20?