DCT

1:25-cv-08133

Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Hexin Holdings Ltd (Hong Kong)
    • Defendant: Shapshe and the Individuals and Entities Operating Shapshe (Jurisdiction Undetermined)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-08133, N.D. Ill., 07/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities or individuals who are engaged in infringing activities, including offering to sell, selling, and importing infringing products into the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are selling shapewear products that infringe on Plaintiff's design patent for a shaped support belt.
  • Technical Context: The case involves ornamental designs for women's shapewear, a highly competitive segment of the direct-to-consumer apparel market.
  • Key Procedural History: This amended complaint has been filed against a collective of unidentified defendants operating under various online "Seller Aliases." The complaint structure suggests a strategy to combat diffuse, online infringement from foreign sellers who allegedly use tactics to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-03-04 D'333 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2021-10-19 D'333 Patent Issue Date
2025-07-17 Amended 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, titled “Shaped support belt,” issued on October 19, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem in the manner of utility patents; rather, they protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶6). The D'333 patent protects a specific aesthetic design for a shapewear garment.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a support belt as depicted in its figures ('333 Patent, Claim). Key visual features include a contoured, hourglass-shaped main body, a series of overlapping horizontal straps, and distinct paneling ('333 Patent, FIG. 1-3). The patent explicitly states that the broken lines in the drawings, which depict stitching, form part of the claimed design ('333 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products associated with the patented design are recognized by consumers and that the design is a component of the commercial success of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶8, 9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described." ('333 Patent, Claim).
  • This claim covers the overall visual appearance of the article as illustrated in Figures 1-11 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "body contouring products" and "shapewear products" that allegedly embody the patented design ('333 Patent, Claim; Compl. ¶1, 17). The complaint refers to them collectively as the "Infringing Products" and does not identify specific brand or model names, as the defendants are unidentified online sellers (Compl. ¶1, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products are advertised and sold through "fully interactive e-commerce stores" on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, and Shein (Compl. ¶1, 20). These products are allegedly sold at "below-market prices" to consumers in the U.S., including within the Northern District of Illinois (Compl. ¶14, 15). Plaintiff alleges these sales are part of an effort to mislead the public into believing the products emanate from or are associated with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the ornamental design of the Defendants' products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'333 patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. The infringement theory is based on the overall appearance of the accused products.

D'333 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the single Design Claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described. The overall ornamental appearance of Defendants' "body contouring products," which are alleged to bear Plaintiff's patented design and are sold through various e-commerce stores. ¶1, 19, 32 col. 1:52-54
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: A primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating that the products actually sold by the unidentified "Seller Aliases" are, in fact, the "Infringing Products" and that their designs are "substantially the same" as the patented design. The complaint itself does not contain photographic or documentary evidence of the accused products.
    • Scope Question: The infringement analysis will depend on the scope afforded to the patented design. A central question is whether infringement requires copying the design in its entirety—including the specific stitching which is explicitly claimed as part of the design—or whether similarity in the overall shape and panel configuration is sufficient.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is the set of drawings, and formal claim construction of words is rare. The analysis instead focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.

  • The "Term": The overall scope of "the ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described" ('333 Patent, Claim).
  • Context and Importance: The outcome of the infringement analysis hinges on how broadly or narrowly the court construes the visual elements protected by the patent. This will determine how similar an accused product must be to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the core of the design is the overall visual impression created by the combination of an hourglass silhouette with a multi-strap and paneled construction, as shown in Figures 1-3 ('333 Patent, FIG. 1-3). Under this view, minor differences in proportion or detail would not avoid infringement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the design is limited to the precise visual details shown. A key piece of evidence for this view is the patent's own description, which states: "The broken lines shown in the drawings depict stitching which forms part of the claimed design" ('333 Patent, Description). An accused product lacking this specific stitching pattern may therefore be argued to fall outside the scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful (Compl. ¶28). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are an "interrelated group of e-commerce sellers" who are "knowingly and willfully" selling the infringing products and are aware of Plaintiff's own products (Compl. ¶16, 28). The complaint further alleges that Defendants communicate with each other regarding tactics for evading detection and litigation (Compl. ¶26).

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

  1. A central evidentiary question will be one of proof and attribution: Can Plaintiff successfully identify the defendants behind the "Seller Aliases," establish jurisdiction, and present evidence that the specific products they sold are substantially the same as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer?
  2. The case will likely turn on a question of design scope: Will the court construe the D'333 patent's claimed design broadly based on its overall appearance, or will it be narrowly limited to articles that include all specific visual elements shown, most notably the explicitly claimed stitching pattern?
  3. A significant procedural hurdle will be enforcement: Given the allegations that Defendants are a diffuse network of foreign operators using aliases to avoid detection, a key challenge for the Plaintiff, even if successful on the merits, will be the practical enforcement of any resulting injunction or monetary judgment.