Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hexin Holding Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: SCULPT TOUCH LLC and The Individuals and Entities Operating SCULPT TOUCH LLC (Jurisdiction Undisclosed)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-08182, N.D. Ill., 08/13/2025
• 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, thereby causing harm.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell shapewear and body contouring products that infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a shaped support belt.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the direct-to-consumer apparel market, specifically for shapewear, where distinctive product design is a key market differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint against largely unidentified e-commerce operators who allegedly use multiple aliases to conceal their identities. The complaint frames the action as necessary to combat online counterfeiters operating on major e-commerce platforms.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-03-04	U.S. Patent No. D933,333 Priority Date
2021-10-19	U.S. Patent No. D933,333 Issued
2025-08-13	Amended Complaint Filed

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. D933333, titled "Shaped support belt," issued October 19, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than function. The patent addresses the challenge of creating a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture—in this case, a support belt intended for the shapewear market (Compl. ¶5).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of the support belt as illustrated in its figures. The design's overall impression is defined by a combination of features, including its vertically concave, hourglass-like profile, a wide central body, and a prominent rectangular front fastening strap that overlays the main body ('333' Patent, FIGS. 1-2). Crucially, the patent’s description states that the broken lines in the drawings represent "stitching which forms part of the claimed design," making this pattern an explicit element of the protected aesthetic ('333 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying this design have been successful due to significant marketing investment, leading to consumer recognition (Compl. ¶8, ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's drawings. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described" ('333 Patent, col. 1:56-58).
• The essential visual elements of this design include:
  • The overall hourglass-like contoured shape.
  • The arrangement of panels creating a wide midsection with narrower top and bottom portions.
  • A large, rectangular fastening strap centered on the front of the belt.
  • The specific pattern of broken-line stitching that delineates the panels and the fastening strap.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "Infringing Products," further described as "body contouring products" and "shapeware products" that bear the Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶1, ¶17, ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants sell the accused products through various "fully interactive e-commerce stores" operating under multiple "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, Shein, and TikTok (Compl. ¶1, ¶12, ¶20). The complaint asserts these products are sold at "below-market prices" and are advertised in a way designed to mislead the public into believing they emanate from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶14, ¶19). The complaint does not provide specific technical descriptions of the accused products beyond the allegation that they embody the patented design.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products create such an impression.

U.S. Patent No. D933,333 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the Sole Claim)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described.	Defendants are making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing shapewear and body contouring products that embody and practice the patented design.	¶1, ¶32, ¶33	col. 1:56-58; FIGS. 1-11

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: The complaint does not include images or detailed descriptions of the accused products. A primary point of contention will be establishing as a matter of fact what the accused products look like and whether they are, from the perspective of an ordinary observer, substantially similar to the patented design.
• Scope Questions: The patent explicitly includes stitching as part of the claimed design ('333 Patent, Description). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused products incorporate a stitching pattern that is visually indistinguishable from the one depicted in the patent drawings, or if any differences are significant enough to alter the overall ornamental impression.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction is typically a matter of describing the claimed visual features rather than defining textual terms. The focus is on the overall appearance of the design as a whole.

• The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described"
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the visual scope of the design claimed in the '333 Patent. The key dispute will be a comparison of this overall visual impression against that of the accused products. Practitioners may focus on which specific features of the design are most salient to an ordinary observer.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the core of the design is its overall visual effect—the distinctive hourglass silhouette combined with the prominent front strap—and that minor variations in proportion or stitching on an accused product would not deceive an ordinary observer. The patent's inclusion of multiple configurations, such as the strap being unfolded, may suggest the design is not rigidly limited to a single static view ('333 Patent, FIGS. 8-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may counter that the design's scope is strictly limited by the details shown, particularly the stitching. The description's explicit statement that the "broken lines... depict stitching which forms part of the claimed design" could be used to argue that any product lacking this precise stitching pattern falls outside the claim's scope ('333 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead counts for induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement through acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing (Compl. ¶1).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willfully" committed (Compl. ¶28). The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendants are an "interrelated group of e-commerce sellers" who are aware of Plaintiff's products and are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully sell the Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶16, ¶28).

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

1. A central issue will be evidentiary: given the lack of visual evidence in the complaint and the alleged use of aliases by Defendants, can the Plaintiff identify the proper parties and produce accused products that allow for a direct visual comparison against the patented design?
2. The case will likely turn on the application of the "ordinary observer" test: assuming accused products are identified, the key question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of those products is substantially the same as the patented design, with a particular focus on whether any differences in shape, proportion, or the explicitly claimed stitching pattern are sufficient to avoid a finding of infringement.