Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case Name: Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Fheuwfgh's and The Individuals and Entities Operating Fheuwfgh's
• Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06702, N.D. Ill., 06/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities who conduct business in the United States, including offering to sell, selling, and importing allegedly infringing products into the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are selling and importing shapewear products that infringe the ornamental designs protected by three of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer apparel industry, specifically concerning the ornamental and aesthetic appearance of women's shapewear garments sold through online marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint against a "Schedule A" list of defendants, a common procedure in cases targeting numerous, often anonymous, online sellers. The complaint alleges these sellers use aliases and other tactics to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-03-04	'333 Patent Priority Date
2021-08-30	'078 Patent Priority Date
2021-10-19	'333 Patent Issue Date
2023-03-21	'078 Patent Issue Date
2023-06-01	'881 Patent Priority Date
2025-03-18	'881 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-18	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D981,078 - Corset Belt

Issued March 21, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '078 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects a specific ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture (D'078 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "corset belt." The design consists of a long, flat band of uniform width which, when worn, creates a multi-layered, wrapped appearance around the torso (D'078 Patent, FIGS. 1, 8). The visual character of the design is defined by its simple, elongated form when unwrapped and its layered, banded look in its state of use (D'078 Patent, Description; FIG. 8).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products associated with Plaintiff's designs are recognized by consumers and that their success is due to marketing and promotional efforts (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a corset belt, as shown and described" (D'078 Patent, Claim).
• The key ornamental features defining the design include:
  • An elongated, rectangular band of uniform width.
  • A wrapped, layered appearance when in a state of use.
  • Surface contours illustrated by shading in the drawings.
• The complaint asserts infringement of the design patent generally, which covers this single claim (Compl. ¶31).

U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333 - Shaped Support Belt

Issued October 19, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '333 Patent protects the ornamental design for an article, not a functional solution to a technical problem (D'333 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "shaped support belt." The design is characterized by a distinct hourglass profile, with concave sides creating a cinched-waist appearance (D'333 Patent, FIG. 2). Key visual elements include a large, rectangular front closure panel overlaid on the main body and visible stitching, which is explicitly noted as part of the claimed design (D'333 Patent, Description; FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: Plaintiff alleges that its designs have become familiar to the public, who associate them exclusively with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent's single claim is for: "The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described" (D'333 Patent, Claim).
• The key ornamental features defining the design include:
  • A wide belt with a pronounced hourglass shape.
  • A large, rectangular front closure piece.
  • Visible stitching depicted with broken lines.
  • Segmented upper and lower bands.
• The complaint asserts infringement of this design patent, which is referred to as the "Hexin Design" (Compl. ¶¶6, 31).

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,066,881 - Lace Corset

Issued March 18, 2025

• Technology Synopsis: The '881 Patent claims the ornamental design for a one-piece bodysuit. The visual appearance is defined by a deep V-neckline, specific floral lace patterns on the bust and lower body, sheer fabric on the torso, and a thong-style back (D'881 Patent, FIGS. 1-3). The broken lines showing a human form are for environmental context and are not part of the claimed design (D'881 Patent, Description).
• Asserted Claims: The patent's single claim is for "The ornamental design for a lace corset as shown and described" (D'881 Patent, Claim).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants sell "body contouring products" and "shapeware" that are visually identical or substantially similar to the claimed design (Compl. ¶¶17, 19, 32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are identified generally as "Infringing Products," which are "body contouring products" and "shapewears" (Compl. ¶¶1, 17). The specific products are not individually identified or pictured in the complaint.
• Functionality and Market Context: The products are allegedly sold by Defendants through "Internet based e-commerce stores" on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, Shein, and TikTok (Compl. ¶¶1, 20). The complaint alleges that Defendants are "sophisticated sellers" who operate under multiple aliases to sell these products at "below-market prices," thereby causing "unfair competition and price erosion" and misleading consumers into believing the products emanate from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶11, 14, 19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement in general terms, stating that Defendants "sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United States for subsequent sale or use products that infringe upon the Hexin Design" (Compl. ¶32). It does not provide a claim chart or other detailed comparison of accused product features to the patented designs. The infringement theory rests on the assertion that the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' products is substantially the same as the designs shown in the patents-in-suit.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can introduce evidence showing that the visual appearance of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented designs from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The complaint's lack of specific product images makes this a central unresolved question.
  • Scope Questions: The analysis may raise questions about the scope of the claimed designs. For a design to be infringed, the accused product must appropriate the novel ornamental features of the patent. The court may need to consider which aspects of the shapewear designs are ornamental versus merely functional, as functional elements are not protected by a design patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings. Unlike utility patents, there are typically no textual claim terms that require formal construction. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design rather than the definition of specific words. The key legal inquiry will not be construing terms, but rather comparing the patented designs to the accused products to determine if an ordinary observer would find them substantially similar.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement through Defendants' own acts of making, selling, and importing (Compl. ¶¶1, 32).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants are an "interrelated group of e-commerce sellers... working in active concert to knowingly and willfully sell the Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶28). The complaint further alleges that Defendants are aware of Plaintiff's "Hexin Products" and that they communicate through channels like WeChat about tactics for "evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits," which may be used to support an inference of pre-suit knowledge and intent (Compl. ¶¶16, 26).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidence and identity: Can the Plaintiff successfully serve the unidentified Defendants and produce specific evidence for each accused product to demonstrate that its ornamental design is substantially the same as one of the patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The complaint's current structure leaves this as the primary unresolved factual matter.
• A key legal question will be the scope of design protection: To what extent are the features of the claimed shapewear designs, such as the hourglass profile of the '333 Patent or the wrapped configuration of the '078 Patent, dictated by function? The answer will determine the breadth of the patent rights and the degree of similarity required for a finding of infringement.
• A practical challenge for the litigation will be one of enforcement: Given the allegations that Defendants are foreign entities operating under concealed identities and moving funds offshore (Compl. ¶¶17, 18, 27), a central question is whether the Plaintiff can effectively identify the responsible parties and enforce any monetary or injunctive relief granted by the court.