Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hexin Holding Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdictions Unknown)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-05440, N.D. Ill., 05/12/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants being foreign entities who allegedly offer to sell, sell, and import infringing products into the Northern District of Illinois through interactive e-commerce websites.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' e-commerce sales of body contouring products infringe two of its design patents covering ornamental designs for shapewear.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the ornamental and aesthetic design of women's shapewear, a market where visual appearance and brand recognition are significant commercial drivers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, targeting numerous and anonymous e-commerce operators. Plaintiff alleges these Defendants operate under aliases to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, and that joinder is proper because the claims arise from the same series of transactions involving the same accused products. No prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-03-04	Priority Date, U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333
2021-08-30	Priority Date, U.S. Design Patent No. D981,078
2021-10-19	Issue Date, U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333
2023-03-21	Issue Date, U.S. Design Patent No. D981,078
2026-05-12	Complaint Filing Date

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 ("Shaped support belt"), issued October 19, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: While design patents do not articulate a problem and solution in the manner of utility patents, the complaint frames the context as a need to establish a unique and recognizable product appearance in the competitive shapewear market Compl. ¶¶6, 9-10
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the ornamental design for a shaped support belt D'333 Patent, claim The design features an overall hourglass contour, a prominent, wide rectangular front closure panel overlying a central section, and distinct horizontal bands at the top and bottom D'333 Patent, FIG. 1 D'333 Patent, FIG. 2 Unconventionally, the patent states that the broken lines in the drawings, which typically depict unclaimed subject matter, instead "depict stitching which forms part of the claimed design" D'333 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this specific design has become associated exclusively with Plaintiff's products through marketing and promotional efforts, making it recognizable to consumers Compl. ¶10

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described" D'333 Patent, claim
• The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features depicted in the patent's figures, with the core elements being:
  • The overall hourglass-like shape of the belt.
  • The configuration of a wide front closure strap over a base garment.
  • The specific pattern of stitching, which is explicitly included as a claimed element of the design.

U.S. Design Patent No. D981,078 - "Corset belt"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D981,078 ("Corset belt"), issued March 21, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to protect a distinct ornamental appearance for a wrap-style corset belt, intended to differentiate it within the shapewear market Compl. ¶¶6, 10
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a corset belt D'078 Patent, claim The design consists of a long, flat band that, when in a state of use, creates the appearance of multiple horizontal wraps around a torso D'078 Patent, FIG. 1 D'078 Patent, FIG. 8 As with the '333 Patent, the description specifies that broken lines "represent sewing thread which forms part of the claimed design," while other broken lines depicting a mannequin are for environmental purposes only and form no part of the claim D'078 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: The design creates a specific, layered aesthetic that Plaintiff alleges is part of its brand identity and a driver of its products' commercial success Compl. ¶¶9-10

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a corset belt, as shown and described" D'078 Patent, claim
• The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features in the patent's figures, including:
  • The appearance as a long, singular band when laid flat.
  • The visual effect of multiple, stacked horizontal bands when shown in a state of use.
  • The specific sewing thread pattern, which is expressly claimed as part of the design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Infringing Products," further described as "body contouring products" and "shapeware products" that bear Plaintiff's patented designs Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶20 Specific product names or model numbers are not provided.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants are selling shapewear products that copy the "Hexin Design" through various e-commerce storefronts on platforms like Amazon, Temu, and TikTok Compl. ¶¶20-21 These stores are allegedly designed to mimic authorized retailers and use Plaintiff's designs to mislead consumers Compl. ¶22 The complaint suggests these products are sold at "below-market prices," leading to price erosion and lost sales for the Plaintiff Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶15 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint's allegations are summarized below.

'333 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Single Claim)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described.	Defendants are alleged to be making, selling, and importing shapewear products that embody and practice the patented design without authorization. The allegations are not directed at a specific product but at a category of "Infringing Products" sold by the collective Defendants.	¶¶1, 20, 33	D'333 Patent, claim; D'333 Patent, FIGS. 1-11

'078 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Single Claim)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a corset belt, as shown and described.	Defendants are alleged to be making, selling, and importing shapewear products that embody and practice the patented design without authorization. The allegations are not directed at a specific product but at a category of "Infringing Products" sold by the collective Defendants.	¶¶1, 20, 33	D'078 Patent, claim; D'078 Patent, FIGS. 1-8

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint makes broad allegations without providing visual examples of the accused products. A central issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that specific products sold by the Defendants are, in fact, "substantially the same" in appearance as the patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
  • Scope Question: The patents' unusual inclusion of stitching (via broken lines) as a claimed element may create a significant point of dispute. A defendant could argue that its product, if it uses a different stitching pattern or lacks visible stitching, does not incorporate a material element of the claimed design and therefore does not infringe.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are typically no claim terms to construe in the same way as in utility patent cases. The "claim" is the design itself, as depicted in the drawings. The entire dispute centers on the meaning of the phrase "as shown and described."

• The Term: "as shown and described"
• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the scope of protection. The infringement analysis will hinge entirely on a visual comparison between the accused products and the designs "shown" in the patent figures and "described" in the specification. The interpretation of what is included in that showing and description will be dispositive.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader interpretation would focus on the overall visual impression of the designs-the hourglass shape and paneling of the '333 Patent, and the multi-wrap appearance of the '078 Patent. They might argue that an ordinary observer would be deceived by this overall similarity, regardless of minor differences in details.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope has a strong basis in the patent's own text. For both patents, the description explicitly states that the broken lines depicting "stitching" or "sewing thread" are part of the claimed design D'333 Patent, description D'078 Patent, description This is a highly specific limitation. A defendant may argue that any product that does not include this exact, claimed stitching pattern cannot be found to infringe, as the patentee deliberately narrowed the claim to include it.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that Defendants are an "interrelated group of e-commerce sellers" working in "active concert," which may lay a foundation for future claims of joint or induced infringement Compl. ¶29
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have "knowingly and willfully" infringed the patents Compl. ¶29 The factual basis for this allegation includes claims, on information and belief, that Defendants are aware of Plaintiff's "Hexin Products" Compl. ¶17, work together as an interrelated group Compl. ¶29, and actively communicate about tactics for evading litigation Compl. ¶27

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

This case, typical of "Schedule A" e-commerce enforcement actions, presents several key questions for the court.

• A primary issue will be one of evidence and attribution: Can the Plaintiff overcome the anonymity of the Defendants to prove that specific accused products, sold by specific entities, are visually "substantially the same" as the patented designs, particularly since the complaint itself lacks any visual evidence of the accused products?
• The central legal question will be one of claim scope: How will the court treat the unconventional inclusion of stitching patterns-normally an unclaimed element-as part of the claimed design? A decision that the specific stitching is a mandatory element for infringement would significantly narrow the patents' scope and could provide a clear path to non-infringement for products with different finishing.
• Finally, a key procedural question is propriety of joinder: Will the court agree that a single action against a large and diverse group of anonymous sellers, whose only stated link is the alleged sale of similar infringing products, is appropriate under Federal Rules and patent-specific joinder statutes?