DCT

1:25-cv-06767

Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Hexin Holding Limited (Hong Kong)
    • Defendant: SportsLife and The Individuals and Entities Operating SportsLife (Jurisdiction Undisclosed)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06767, N.D. Ill., 07/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities or individuals engaged in infringing activities, including offering to sell, selling, and importing products into the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell shapewear products that infringe Plaintiff's design patent for a shaped support belt.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of women's shapewear, a significant and competitive product category within the global direct-to-consumer apparel market.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has patented over 126 works related to its shapewear business, but notes no specific prior litigation or proceedings relevant to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-03-04 D933,333 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2021-10-19 U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333 Issues
2025-07-01 Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, not its utility. The patent addresses the challenge of creating a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for a women's support garment.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a shaped support belt as depicted in its figures ('333 Patent, Claim). The design consists of a wide, hourglass-contoured belt featuring a prominent rectangular front fastening panel overlaid on the main body ('333 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 2). The design also includes specific angled side panels and visible stitching, which the patent specification explicitly states forms part of the claimed design ('333 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is a key driver of the commercial success of Plaintiff's products, which are "recognized and adored by consumers" as a result of significant marketing and promotional investment (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which incorporates the drawings by reference.
  • The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described" ('333 Patent, Claim).
  • The core ornamental features comprising the design include:
    • The overall hourglass shape and contour of the belt.
    • A large, rectangular front panel that appears to serve as a fastening point.
    • Flanking upper and lower side panels that are distinct from the main body.
    • The pattern of broken-line stitching that delineates the various panels.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are identified as "Infringing Products," specifically "body contouring products" and "shapeware products" sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶1, ¶17, ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges Defendants operate a network of e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, Shein, and TikTok (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20). It is alleged that these stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers and use the patented design to mislead consumers into believing the products are genuine Hexin products (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21). The complaint does not provide specific details about the construction or materials of the accused products, focusing instead on their alleged visual similarity to the patented design.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that Defendants are directly infringing the ’333 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing products that bear the patented "Hexin Design" (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 32, 33). The legal test for design patent infringement is 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.

Because the complaint does not include images of the accused products or a comparative claim chart, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegation is not possible from the pleading alone. The core of the infringement claim rests on the factual assertion that the ornamental appearance of the Defendants' shapewear is substantially the same as the design shown in the figures of the ’333 Patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The central issue will be a factual comparison between the accused products and the figures in the ’333 Patent. The court will need to assess whether the overall visual impression of the Defendants' products is substantially similar to the claimed design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
    • Procedural Question: A significant threshold issue may be identifying the correct legal entities responsible for the alleged infringement. The complaint alleges that Defendants operate under fictitious aliases and use tactics to conceal their identities, which could present challenges for discovery and enforcement (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23, 25).

V. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for induced or contributory infringement, focusing its allegations on direct infringement by the defendant sellers (Compl. ¶32).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶28). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are an "interrelated group of e-commerce sellers" who are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully sell the Infringing Products" and are aware of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 28).

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

This case presents two primary questions for the court:

  1. A central evidentiary question of visual similarity: Does the ornamental design of the accused shapewear products appear "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '333 patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The resolution of this issue will depend entirely on a visual comparison of the accused products against the patent's drawings.
  2. A foundational procedural question of identity and liability: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify and serve the proper legal entities behind the alleged network of e-commerce storefronts and establish that they are operating in concert as alleged? The complaint's focus on concealed identities and coordinated seller tactics suggests this may be a significant hurdle in the litigation (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 26).