DCT

1:25-cv-12564

Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

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-12564, N.D. Ill., 10/15/2025
  • 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 Northern District of Illinois through interactive e-commerce websites.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are infringing a U.S. design patent by selling shapewear products that copy the patented ornamental design.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of women's shapewear, a highly competitive segment of the direct-to-consumer apparel market where visual appearance is a key driver of consumer choice.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, administrative patent challenges, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The case is filed against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a common strategy to combat diffuse online infringement from sellers who allegedly use aliases to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-06-01 D'881 Patent Application Filing Date
2025-03-18 D'881 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,066,881 - "Lace Corset"

The Invention Explained

  • The Design: The D'881 Patent protects the specific, ornamental, non-functional appearance of a lace corset (D'881 Patent, Claim). As a design patent, it does not claim a technical function or method but rather the unique visual impression created by the article's design.
  • Key Ornamental Features: The claimed design, illustrated in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a women's bodysuit-style garment with several distinct visual elements (D'881 Patent, Figs. 1-2). These include a deep V-shaped neckline extending down the torso, with the bust and V-neck area constructed of patterned lace; a solid, non-lace midsection; and patterned lace trim along the leg openings (D'881 Patent, Fig. 2). The patent explicitly disclaims the human form shown in broken lines, meaning the patent's scope is limited to the ornamental features of the garment itself (D'881 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: In the apparel industry, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a key product differentiator and source identifier for consumers, directly impacting commercial success (Compl. ¶9-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a lace corset as shown and described" (D'881 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in Figures 1 through 6 of the patent (D'881 Patent, Description).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Infringing Products," specifically "body contouring products" and "shapeware products" sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶1, ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, and TikTok to sell the accused products directly to consumers in the United States, including within Illinois (Compl. ¶19, ¶21).
  • These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers and mislead consumers into believing the products emanate from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶20, ¶22).
  • The complaint alleges these products are sold at "below-market prices," causing price erosion and loss of sales for the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶12, ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of a design patent, for which the legal test is whether, "in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same" (Compl. ¶34, citing Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). The core allegation is that the accused products so closely resemble the design claimed in the D'881 Patent that they would deceive an ordinary observer into purchasing the accused product believing it was the Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶34-35).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that Defendants' products "resemble Plaintiff's products so closely that they infringe up Plaintiff's design patent" (Compl. ¶35). The infringement analysis will therefore depend on a visual comparison between the accused products sold by each Defendant and the overall ornamental appearance of the design as depicted in the figures of the D'881 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be whether the overall visual impression of the Defendants' products is "substantially the same" as the claimed design. This holistic comparison must account for the specific arrangement of lace panels, the shape of the V-neck, and the trim details shown in the D'881 patent drawings.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether minor differences between the accused products and the patented design are sufficient to alter the overall visual impression in the mind of an ordinary observer, or whether the alleged similarities in the design's prominent features dominate the comparison.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable, as design patent claims are defined by their drawings rather than textual limitations requiring judicial construction.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶29). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are "sophisticated sellers" who are aware of Plaintiff's "Hexin Products" and work in concert to misappropriate Plaintiff's intellectual property while using tactics like fictitious aliases to conceal their identities and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶25, ¶29).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' accused shapewear products substantially the same as the specific combination of lace patterns, paneling, and silhouette claimed in the D'881 Patent?
  2. A key procedural and evidentiary question will be one of identification and proof: Given that the defendants are alleged to be a diffuse and anonymous group of online sellers, can the Plaintiff successfully link specific infringing products to each named defendant and gather the necessary evidence for a visual comparison on a defendant-by-defendant basis?