Hexin Holding v. Melliflo: Corset Belt Design Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Hexin Holding Limited brought a design patent infringement action against multiple e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting USD981078S covering a corset belt. The case against defendant Melliflo was resolved by stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 682 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
Schedule A design patent action ends in bilateral with-prejudice dismissal
On October 13, 2023, Hexin Holding Limited filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a group of defendants identified on a Schedule A — a filing format common in e-commerce enforcement actions targeting multiple online sellers simultaneously. The asserted patent, USD981078S (Application No. 29/805,757), protects the ornamental design of a corset belt. Named defendants included Attom Tech LLC, Melliflo, Nick’s No.1 store, Taiuloo, This Life Is Better LLC, and YGBrand.
The case against Melliflo was terminated on August 25, 2025, via a stipulated dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Crucially, both parties agreed to dismiss all claims — including any counterclaims asserted by Melliflo — with prejudice, and each party agreed to bear its own fees and costs. A with-prejudice dismissal is a final adjudication on the merits by operation of law, barring Hexin from refiling the same infringement claims against Melliflo in any federal court.
At 682 days from filing to closure, the timeline suggests the parties engaged in substantive pre-trial activity — potentially including claim construction negotiations or licensing discussions — before reaching agreement. The mutual with-prejudice structure and no-fee-shifting term are consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the specific financial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record. The disposition of claims against the remaining Schedule A defendants is not reflected in this filing.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 682 days
682 days — above the median for stipulated design patent dismissals in N.D. Ill.
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the agreed order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires written consent of all parties who have appeared. By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, both Hexin and Melliflo accepted a final termination of all claims between them. No court merits ruling was issued — the parties themselves effected the final disposition. This is a common mechanism for resolving patent disputes where a settlement or license has been reached but terms remain confidential.
Final as to all claims — no refilingHexin cannot refile against Melliflo on USD981078S
The with-prejudice designation permanently extinguishes Hexin’s right to bring the same infringement claims against Melliflo in any U.S. federal court. While this forecloses further litigation on these specific claims, the mutual structure of the dismissal — covering Melliflo’s counterclaims equally — suggests Hexin may have obtained a satisfactory resolution, possibly a licensing arrangement or cessation of infringing sales, before agreeing to finality.
Claim extinguished — cannot refileMelliflo exits the litigation permanently, counterclaims also dismissed
Melliflo’s counterclaims against Hexin are likewise dismissed with prejudice, meaning Melliflo cannot later pursue any cross-claims it had asserted in this action. The no-costs provision eliminates any fee-shifting risk for Melliflo. The with-prejudice resolution suggests Melliflo accepted permanent closure — potentially after modifying product offerings, reaching a licensing agreement, or otherwise satisfying Hexin’s enforcement objectives.
Counterclaims extinguishedSchedule A enforcement: bilateral finality as a resolution model
Schedule A patent cases against e-commerce sellers frequently resolve defendant-by-defendant as enforcement progresses. The Melliflo resolution illustrates a typical endgame: bilateral with-prejudice dismissal with no public fee award, preserving confidentiality of any settlement terms. Other remaining defendants on Hexin’s Schedule A may face similar resolution pressure. Design patent holders in the fashion accessories space should note that USD981078S remains a live enforcement asset against non-settled defendants.
Design patent enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hexin Holding Limited | Individual | Fashion accessories design patent holder — holder of USD981078S (corset belt design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Parties Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Melliflo — e-commerce seller alleged to have infringed Hexin’s corset belt design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Attom Tech LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Melliflo | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Nick’s No.1 store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Taiuloo | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | This Life Is Better LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | YGBrand | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Faye Yifei Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Hexin Holding LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | YK Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hexin Holding LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Georgia N. Alexakis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring written consent of all appearing parties — a procedural mechanism that confers finality without judicial merits adjudication. The explicit with-prejudice language applied to both sides’ claims is legally significant: it operates as a final judgment on the merits by operation of law, foreclosing any future federal litigation between Hexin and Melliflo on these claims. The mutual no-costs term is consistent with an arm’s-length negotiated resolution.
USD981078S — Ornamental Design for a Corset Belt
USD981078S (Application No. 29/805,757) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a corset belt — a shapewear-adjacent fashion accessory with significant presence in e-commerce marketplaces. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional aspects of a product, meaning infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. The application number 29/805,757 follows the USPTO’s standard design patent series.
In the e-commerce fashion accessories market, design patent enforcement against platform sellers has grown substantially. A corset belt design patent of this type provides targeted exclusivity against sellers offering visually similar products on Amazon, Shopify, and similar channels. The Schedule A enforcement model used here — targeting multiple sellers simultaneously — amplifies the commercial value of a single design registration, making USD981078S a potentially high-ROI enforcement asset for Hexin if the ornamental design is distinctive and broadly drafted.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD981078S?
Any brand, private-label seller, or manufacturer commercialising corset belts, shapewear belts, or visually similar waist-cinching accessories through U.S. e-commerce channels should treat USD981078S as a live clearance risk. Hexin has demonstrated a willingness to assert this patent against multiple simultaneous defendants, and the with-prejudice resolution with Melliflo confirms active enforcement — not an abandoned filing. The remaining Schedule A defendants indicate continued litigation activity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map USD981078S against their specific product designs, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and monitor Hexin’s broader design portfolio for related filings. With the litigation still active against other defendants, early FTO clearance is significantly less costly than responding to a Schedule A complaint with an asset freeze motion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0981078S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois e-commerce enforcement
Explore comparable design patent infringement Schedule A actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting fashion accessories and apparel sellers on e-commerce platforms.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement in e-commerce fashion
The Hexin v. Melliflo resolution is a textbook example of Schedule A e-commerce enforcement dynamics — worth tracking closely.
Schedule A filings remain an effective design patent enforcement tool
Hexin’s multi-defendant Schedule A approach in N.D. Illinois allowed simultaneous pressure on multiple e-commerce sellers with a single filing cost. The Melliflo resolution — reached without a court merits ruling — suggests enforcement leverage was sufficient to drive bilateral closure. Fashion and accessories rights-holders should consider whether their design portfolio supports this enforcement model.
With-prejudice mutual dismissals signal resolved disputes, not abandoned ones
A unilateral voluntary dismissal without prejudice would suggest the plaintiff walked away. Here, the bilateral with-prejudice structure — covering both Hexin’s claims and Melliflo’s counterclaims — is consistent with a negotiated outcome. IP counsel monitoring competitor enforcement should treat this pattern as a resolution signal, not a litigation failure.
Limited v Parties — key questions answered
Hexin Holding Limited sued Melliflo for infringement of design patent USD981078S (corset belt) in the Northern District of Illinois. After 682 days, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Hexin from refiling the same infringement claims against Melliflo. However, USD981078S itself remains valid and enforceable — Hexin can and apparently does continue asserting it against other defendants listed on the Schedule A in the same case.
A Schedule A case allows a patent or trademark holder to sue multiple unknown or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers in a single complaint by identifying defendants on an attached schedule. It is frequently used in N.D. Illinois to target online marketplace sellers. Hexin used this approach to simultaneously sue Attom Tech LLC, Melliflo, Nick’s No.1 store, Taiuloo, This Life Is Better LLC, and YGBrand.
Based on the public record, the Melliflo dismissal resolves claims only as to that defendant. The case caption names additional Schedule A defendants including Attom Tech LLC, Taiuloo, Nick’s No.1 store, This Life Is Better LLC, and YGBrand. Their status is not determined by the Melliflo stipulation and the patent remains asserted in the action.
U.S. design patent infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test from Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir. 2008): infringement occurs if an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused product is substantially the same as the patented design. For a corset belt design patent like USD981078S, the visual similarity of the belt’s ornamental features — shape, stitching, buckle configuration — would be the central inquiry.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.