Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hexin Holding Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdictions Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-11395, N.D. Ill., 09/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign entities engaged in infringing activities directed at the United States, including offering to sell, selling, and importing products into the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators infringe a U.S. design patent covering a shaped support belt by selling infringing "body contouring products" online.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the direct-to-consumer women's shapewear market, where product appearance is a significant driver of consumer choice and brand identity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a common strategy in actions targeting numerous, often anonymous, foreign e-commerce sellers. Plaintiff alleges these sellers operate under aliases to conceal their identities and coordinate their activities.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-03-04	U.S. Patent No. D933,333 Priority Date
2021-10-19	U.S. Patent No. D933333 Issued
2025-09-19	Complaint Filed

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D933,333, "Shaped Support Belt," issued October 19, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D’333 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D’333 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "shaped support belt" (D’333 Patent, Title). The design features a wide, contoured central band with an hourglass shape, overlaid with a secondary, rectangular fastening strap in the front (D’333 Patent, FIG. 1, 2). The design also includes distinct patterns of stitching and paneling on the main band (D’333 Patent, FIG. 3). The broken lines in the figures indicate stitching that forms part of the claimed design (D’333 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: In the competitive shapewear market, a distinct ornamental design can serve as a key product differentiator and source identifier for consumers (Compl. ¶9-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is: "The ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described." (D’333 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," identified as "body contouring products" that bear Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶1, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores on platforms like Amazon, Temu, Shein, and TikTok, selling shapewear products that copy the design patented in the D’333 Patent (Compl. ¶18, 21).
• Plaintiff alleges these products are sold at below-market prices to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, and that Defendants use Plaintiff's design in advertising to mislead the public into believing the products emanate from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶15, 20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or side-by-side visual comparison. Instead, it makes narrative allegations that the Defendants' products embody the patented design. In design patent cases, infringement is determined by 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.

The complaint alleges that Defendants are "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing products bearing Plaintiff's patented design" (Compl. ¶1) and that their products "infringe upon the Hexin Design" (Compl. ¶33). These allegations form the basis of the infringement claim.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused products are substantially the same as the design claimed in the D’333 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The analysis will compare the overall visual impression of the accused products with the figures of the D’333 Patent.
  • Defendant Identification: A threshold issue for the case is identifying the anonymous defendants and linking the "Seller Aliases" listed in Schedule A to specific infringing products and responsible legal entities (Compl. ¶19, 24).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable, as the single claim of the design patent-in-suit is not susceptible to traditional claim construction of disputed terms.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory infringement. The claims are focused on direct infringement through Defendants' alleged acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing (Compl. ¶33).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶29). This allegation is 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" and are aware of Hexin's products (Compl. ¶17, 29).

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

• A primary procedural question will be one of joinder and jurisdiction: can the Plaintiff successfully group numerous, unidentified foreign sellers as a single defendant class and establish personal jurisdiction over them in the Northern District of Illinois based on their collective e-commerce activities?
• The core substantive issue will be one of visual comparison: assuming the accused products are properly identified and brought before the court, would an "ordinary observer" find that their overall ornamental design is substantially the same as the specific design for a "shaped support belt" claimed in the D’333 Patent?
• A critical evidentiary question will be one of attribution: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to prove that the anonymous "Seller Aliases" are operated by the named Defendants and are responsible for the specific sales of products that allegedly infringe the asserted design patent?