Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hexin Holding Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: FHEUWFGH'S AND THE INDIVIDUAL AND/OR ENTITY OPERATING FHEUWFGH'S (Jurisdiction Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06702, N.D. Ill., 11/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign entity that directs commercial activities to, and has sold and shipped infringing products into, the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce sales of shapewear infringe its design patent for a shaped support belt.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of women's shapewear, a commercially significant category within the direct-to-consumer apparel market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's own products that embody the patented design have been marked with the patent number. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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 (’333 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’333 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (D’333 Patent, p.1, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a shaped support belt, which is illustrated in the patent’s figures (D’333 Patent, p.1, DESCRIPTION). Key visual features of the claimed design include a pronounced hourglass shape, a wide front panel, and two smaller overlapping straps for closure (D’333 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 2). The design also includes distinct vertical panels and stitching, which are depicted as part of the claimed design (D’333 Patent, FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the commercial success of products embodying the design is due to significant marketing efforts and resulting consumer recognition of the design's appearance (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the single claim of the ’333 Patent (Compl. ¶25).
• The claim protects "The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described" (D’333 Patent, p.1, Claim). The core visual elements that constitute this design include:
  • A wide, corset-style belt with a concave, hourglass-like profile.
  • A front closure system featuring a wide central panel overlaid by two adjustable straps.
  • Multiple vertical panels defined by stitching shown in broken lines.
  • Distinctive curved contours along the top and bottom edges of the belt.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are identified generically as "shapewear," "body contouring products," and "Infringing Products" that allegedly bear the patented design (Compl. ¶1, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products within the district through an "Internet based e-commerce store" (Compl. p.1). The complaint asserts that these products are advertised in a way that may mislead the public into believing they originate from the Plaintiff and that sales from stores like Defendant’s have resulted in a "sharp increase in sales for those stores unlawfully using Hexin Design" (Compl. ¶18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that Defendant sells products that copy the ornamental design protected by the ’333 Patent (Compl. ¶¶18, 26). In design patent cases, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. The complaint alleges that Defendant is "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing products bearing Plaintiff's patented design" (Compl. p.1).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue for the court will be establishing the actual appearance of the accused product(s). The complaint does not contain photographs or other visual depictions of the accused products, making a direct comparison to the patented design impossible at this stage.
  • Scope Questions: The central legal question for infringement will be whether the accused design and the claimed design are "substantially the same" from the perspective of an ordinary observer. This analysis will require the court to assess the overall visual impression of the designs, rather than comparing discrete features in isolation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for a design patent focuses on the visual impression created by the drawings as a whole, rather than on textual elements. The title provides context for the article of manufacture to which the design is applied.

• The Term: "shaped support belt"
• Context and Importance: This phrase from the patent's title and claim defines the article of manufacture. The infringement analysis will compare the overall visual appearance of the accused product to the patented design as applied to this type of article. Practitioners may focus on this as it frames the overall context for the visual comparison.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The intrinsic evidence is entirely visual, consisting of the patent’s figures.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claimed design is not limited to the exact proportions shown but covers the overall visual impression created by the unique combination of the hourglass profile, paneling, and distinctive front-strap closure system on any similar garment (D’333 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the scope of protection is limited to designs that are visually nearly indistinguishable from the specific shapes, proportions, and features shown in the patent's drawings, including the specific curvature of the top and bottom edges and the relative size of the front panels (D’333 Patent, FIG. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for willful infringement but requests treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and attorney's fees under § 285 (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶4, 6). The factual basis for this request appears to rest on allegations that Defendant is aware of Plaintiff's products, operates under "Seller Aliases to conceal its identity," and that its conduct is part of a broader pattern of "theft of Hexin Design" by e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶¶15, 17-18).

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

• A central threshold issue is evidentiary: what is the specific ornamental design of the accused product(s)? Without visual evidence, which is absent from the complaint, no meaningful comparison to the patented design can be conducted.
• Once the accused product's design is established, the case will turn on a question of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the design claimed in the '333 Patent? The outcome will depend on the court's assessment of the "substantially the same" standard as applied to the overall visual effect of the two designs.