Untitled case

Case Overview: Hexin Holding Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Plaintiff Hexin Holding Ltd., a China-based operating company and wholesale manufacturer of shapewear, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a group of unidentified online sellers. The case, filed on April 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, accuses the defendants of infringing two of Hexin's U.S. design patents covering ornamental designs for women's shapewear products. The defendants are identified on a sealed "Schedule A," a common litigation tactic used to sue numerous online marketplace vendors, often based overseas, whose identities are not fully known at the time of filing. This legal strategy allows plaintiffs to target a network of alleged infringers in a single action, primarily those operating on platforms like Amazon and Temu. The case has been assigned to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The lawsuit asserts infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333, which claims an ornamental design for a "shaped support belt," and U.S. Design Patent No. D981,078, for a "corset belt." Hexin alleges that the Schedule A defendants are selling shapewear products that copy these patented designs through various online storefronts. This case is part of a broader, aggressive enforcement campaign by Hexin, which has filed numerous similar lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois against alleged infringers. These cases are notable for their use of the Schedule A mechanism to efficiently target widespread, small-scale infringement in the e-commerce space, often resulting in quick default judgments and permanent injunctions.

The choice of the Northern District of Illinois as a venue is significant. It is a popular and busy forum for patent litigation, known for having a dedicated panel of judges experienced in handling patent cases through its Patent Pilot Program. This experience can lead to more predictable and efficient case management. Hexin's legal strategy in this and prior cases leverages this venue to secure broad relief, including temporary restraining orders (TROs), asset restraints against defendants' marketplace accounts, and expedited discovery to uncover the sellers' identities. The repetitive nature of these lawsuits suggests a focused effort by Hexin to police the online market for shapewear and protect its design patent portfolio against a diffuse network of alleged counterfeiters and copycat sellers.

Key Legal Developments and Case Outcome

As of May 4, 2026, the patent infringement litigation initiated by Hexin Holding Ltd. is in its earliest procedural stages. Given the case was filed just over two weeks ago, developments have been swift and focused on securing immediate, temporary relief against the accused infringers, consistent with the established playbook for "Schedule A" lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (April 2026)

• 2026-04-18: Complaint Filed: Hexin Holding Ltd. filed its patent infringement complaint against "The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A." The complaint asserts that the defendants are selling shapewear products that infringe upon the ornamental designs protected by U.S. Design Patents D933,333 and D981,078. Simultaneously, Hexin filed a motion to file "Schedule A"—the list identifying the defendant online marketplace storefronts—under seal to prevent the defendants from preemptively hiding assets or moving their operations upon learning of the lawsuit. The case was assigned to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman.
• Initial Motions for Ex Parte Relief: Following the filing of the complaint, Hexin almost certainly filed a series of ex parte motions seeking immediate court intervention without prior notice to the defendants. This standard package of motions in "Schedule A" cases typically includes:
  • A Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to immediately halt the sale of infringing products.
  • A request for an asset restraint to freeze funds in the defendants' financial accounts associated with their e-commerce stores.
  • A Motion for Expedited Discovery to obtain information from third parties like Amazon, Temu, and PayPal to uncover the defendants' identities and the scope of their operations.
  • A Motion for Alternative Service of Process, requesting permission to serve the defendants via email and electronic publication, as they are often located overseas and difficult to identify for traditional personal service.
• Late April 2026: Temporary Restraining Order Likely Granted: While specific sealed orders for this case are not yet publicly available, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman and the Northern District of Illinois routinely grant these initial motions in "Schedule A" cases. It is highly probable that the court issued a sealed TRO in late April 2026. This order would temporarily enjoin the defendants from infringing the patents, freeze their marketplace assets, and grant Hexin's requests for expedited discovery and alternative service. These orders are a critical first step, as the asset freeze provides security for a potential future damages award and creates significant leverage over the defendants.
• Answers/Counterclaims: As of May 4, 2026, no defendants have appeared or filed an answer. This is typical, as the defendants have likely only recently been served (or are in the process of being served) via email under the court's TRO. The majority of defendants in these cases do not appear, ultimately leading to default.

Pre-Trial Motions and Final Disposition

The case has not yet reached the stage of substantive pre-trial motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, summary judgment), claim construction, or trial. The current posture of the case is focused on perfecting service and seeking a preliminary injunction, which would extend the terms of the TRO.

The likely trajectory for this case, based on numerous similar actions filed by Hexin and others, is that most or all defendants will fail to appear. Hexin will then move for a preliminary injunction, followed by a motion for default judgment, seeking a permanent injunction and an award of damages, likely in the form of the defendants' profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records confirms that there are currently no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed against either of the asserted patents, D933,333 or D981,078. The anonymous, often foreign-based defendants in "Schedule A" cases rarely have the resources or sophistication to launch such validity challenges at the PTAB. Therefore, the litigation is not at risk of being stayed pending any PTAB review.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on a review of the court docket and other publicly available information, the following counsel has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Hexin Holding Ltd.

Firm: YK Law LLP

YK Law is an international law firm and a co-founding member of the "Yingke Global One-Hour Legal Service Ecosystem," which includes Yingke Law Firm, one of the largest firms in the Asia Pacific region. The firm emphasizes its "Global Mindset, Local Instinct" and its ability to serve cross-border clients, particularly those with business interests in China and the U.S. Its practice areas include commercial litigation and intellectual property.

• Faye Yifei Deng
  • Role: Lead Counsel. Ms. Deng filed the original complaint and the attorney appearance form on behalf of Hexin Holding Ltd.
  • Firm & Location: YK Law LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Deng is a Senior Counsel whose practice focuses on commercial litigation, including intellectual property infringement actions. Her biography notes extensive experience in U.S. federal courts and she has consistently represented Hexin Holding in its numerous "Schedule A" patent and copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Northern District of Illinois. She is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Defendant Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, no attorneys have filed an appearance on behalf of any defendant in this case. The public docket does not list any counsel for the defendant entities, which are identified only as "The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A."

This is the normal course for this type of litigation. The defendants are numerous online sellers, many of whom are based overseas and whose identities are initially unknown. They are being served electronically under a court order that was likely granted ex parte shortly after the case was filed in late April 2026.

Given the recent filing date, it is unlikely that defendants have been formally served and had an opportunity to retain counsel and appear. In the vast majority of these "Schedule A" cases, the defendants do not appear at all, leading to a default judgment.

However, in some prior "Schedule A" cases filed by Hexin Holding Ltd. in the same district, a small number of defendants have occasionally hired counsel to contest the allegations or vacate a default judgment. For example, in a 2025 case, an attorney from a small firm appeared on behalf of a few named defendants months after the case was filed to challenge a default judgment. Should any defendants choose to appear in this matter, the docket will be updated accordingly. But at this early stage, there is no defense counsel of record.