Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hexin Holding Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Business Entities, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04746, N.D. Ill., 07/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendants are aliens engaged in infringing activities that cause harm in the district by advertising, offering to sell, and shipping products to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators sell shapewear products that infringe a U.S. design patent for a corset belt.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the highly competitive direct-to-consumer e-commerce market for women's shapewear garments.
• Key Procedural History: This action is structured to combat what the plaintiff characterizes as a network of foreign e-commerce operators who use aliases to sell infringing goods. The complaint targets a group of initially unidentified "John Doe" defendants, a common procedural posture in cases alleging widespread online counterfeiting.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D981,078 S, titled Corset belt, issued on March 21, 2023.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the patent does not describe a technical problem. Rather, it addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a corset-style belt in the apparel market (Compl. ¶5; ’078 Patent, Title).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a corset belt as depicted in its figures (’078 Patent, Claim). The design consists of an elongated, wrap-around band featuring a series of parallel, horizontal broken lines, which are explicitly claimed as representing sewing thread, contributing to the overall visual impression of the garment (’078 Patent, FIG. 2, Description).
  • Technical Importance: In the fashion and apparel sector, unique ornamental designs serve as a key product differentiator and source of brand identity, which the complaint alleges is critical to Plaintiff's success as a "prominent designer of shapewear" (Compl. ¶5).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The single claim of the patent is for "The ornamental design for a corset belt, as shown and described" (’078 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's eight figures, which depict the following essential ornamental features:
    • The overall shape and proportions of the elongated belt (FIG. 1, FIG. 8).
    • The appearance from the front, rear, left, and right sides (FIG. 2-5).
    • The pattern of horizontal lines representing stitching across the surface of the belt (FIG. 2, FIG. 8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "body contouring shapewear" (Compl. ¶18), "infringing products" (Compl. ¶13), and products that are a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed in Plaintiff's Patent" (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). These products are allegedly sold by the unnamed Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts.
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are shapewear garments advertised and sold online to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges that the Defendants are "sophisticated sellers" who operate numerous storefronts under aliases to sell these products, often at "below-market prices" (Compl. ¶13, ¶17). The complaint includes an image showing a model wearing Plaintiff's shapewear, which is a wrap-around waist garment, illustrating the type of product at issue (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart. Infringement of a design patent 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 framed in this context but lack specific, side-by-side visual comparisons.

• Narrative Summary: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "sell, offer for sale, and/or import" products that directly or indirectly infringe the ornamental design of the ’078 Patent (Compl. ¶39). The core of the infringement claim is that the accused products sold by Defendants are "virtually identical to and/or are substantially similar to the look and feel" of the patented design, constituting a "colorable imitation" that is likely to cause consumer confusion (Compl. ¶33, Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The complaint asserts that these acts are performed without a license or authorization from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶27). The visual evidence provided shows Plaintiff's commercial embodiment of the design, which it alleges Defendants are copying (Compl. p. 3).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The primary issue will be evidentiary: can the Plaintiff locate the accused products and demonstrate that their overall visual appearance is substantially the same as the claimed design in the ’078 Patent? The complaint lacks images of the accused products, which will be necessary to prove infringement.
  • Scope Question: A key question for the court will be whether the specific visual features of the accused products, once identified, are close enough to the patented design to confuse an ordinary observer. Minor differences between the products and the patent figures may or may not be sufficient to avoid infringement, depending on their effect on the overall ornamental impression.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents is atypical, as the figures, rather than words, define the claim scope. The analysis focuses on the visual impression created by the drawings as a whole.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a corset belt, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the visual scope of the claimed design. The interpretation of what constitutes the "ornamental design" will be critical. Practitioners may focus on which specific visual elements are ornamental and contribute to the overall appearance.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described." A party could argue that the overall visual impression of an elongated, horizontally-stitched wrap belt is the core of the design, allowing for minor variations in non-essential details.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description explicitly identifies certain features. For example, it states, "The broken lines shown in FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3 and FIG. 8 on the corset belt represent sewing thread which forms part of the claimed design" (’078 Patent, Description). This specific statement could be used to argue that the presence, pattern, and appearance of this stitching are essential limitations of the claim, and any product lacking this feature would not infringe.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶39) but does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge of the patent combined with specific actions intended to encourage infringement by third parties.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶27, ¶35). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are part of an "interrelated group of e-commerce sellers" who are aware of Plaintiff and its products (Compl. ¶15, ¶27) and who use tactics like fictitious aliases to conceal their infringing activities and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶17, ¶23).

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

1. A Procedural Question of Identification: The initial and most significant challenge for the Plaintiff will be procedural: can it successfully identify the anonymous defendants listed on "Schedule A," link them to specific e-commerce storefronts, and obtain evidence of the actual products they are selling in the U.S.?
2. A Substantive Question of Visual Identity: The core infringement question will be one of visual comparison. Assuming accused products are identified, does their overall ornamental design create a substantially similar visual impression to the design claimed in the ’078 Patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art?
3. A Question of Collective Culpability: A central issue for damages and willfulness will be whether the Plaintiff can prove its allegation that the various Defendants are an "interrelated group" acting "in active concert" (Compl. ¶27). Establishing this link would be critical to demonstrating the knowing and willful infringement necessary for enhanced damages.