Hexin Holding v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Three Design Patents
Hexin Holding Limited secured a default judgment in 127 days against anonymous TikTok marketplace sellers accused of infringing three U.S. design patents covering corset belts and shaped support garments. Judge Chang awarded $10,000 in reasonable royalties and issued a permanent injunction binding TikTok to freeze and release defendants’ funds.
TikTok design patent ambush: Hexin’s swift Schedule A victory
On June 18, 2025, Hexin Holding Limited filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against an anonymous group of online marketplace sellers — identified only on a sealed Schedule A — alleging infringement of three design patents: USD0981078S (application US29/805757), USD0933333S (application US29/772761), and USD1066881S (application US29/877074), covering corset belt, lace corset, and shaped support belt designs. The accused sellers were operating through TikTok’s e-commerce marketplace.
The case closed on October 23, 2025, via default judgment — the defendants never appeared or contested the claims. Judge Edmond E. Chang granted Hexin’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in full. The court found defendants liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, awarded $10,000 in reasonable royalties under § 284, and entered a sweeping permanent injunction. TikTok was ordered to freeze and release defendants’ account funds within specified deadlines.
The 127-day timeline from filing to judgment is consistent with the compressed lifecycle typical of Schedule A ‘design patent troll sweep’ actions in N.D. Ill., where defendants’ anonymity and non-appearance routinely yield default. The $10,000 royalty figure was grounded in actual TikTok sales data — 167 units at $32.05 — rather than a speculative multiplier, suggesting the court exercised restraint in the absence of adversarial briefing. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any defendants subsequently moved to vacate the default, or whether Hexin has identified additional seller accounts triggering supplemental proceedings.
Filing to Default Judgment in 127 days
127 days — faster than the N.D. Ill. median for Schedule A default actions
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55
When defendants fail to appear or respond, a court may enter default judgment on well-pleaded allegations. Here, Judge Chang accepted Hexin’s complaint as establishing liability for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The court still independently assessed damages reasonableness — evidenced by its reference to actual TikTok sales data — rather than simply accepting the requested figure as a formality.
Rule 55 default — liability conceded by non-appearanceHexin secures injunction, $10K royalty, and fund seizure
Hexin obtained a permanent injunction barring defendants from selling, distributing, or advertising any product bearing its three design patents. Crucially, the order binds TikTok directly — requiring fund freezes and releases within seven to fourteen calendar days. Hexin also retains ongoing authority to commence supplemental enforcement proceedings under Rule 69, materially extending its enforcement reach beyond this single judgment.
Full injunctive relief + fund seizure orderedNon-appearance forfeits all defenses and assets
Defendants, by failing to appear, waived every available defense — including any challenge to design patent validity, claim scope, or the reasonableness of the royalty demand. Any funds held by TikTok up to $10,000 are now subject to immediate release to Hexin. Defendants wishing to contest the judgment face a high bar to vacate default under Rule 55(c), requiring a showing of good cause, a meritorious defense, and no prejudice to plaintiff.
All defenses forfeited — vacatur bar is highTikTok Shop sellers face direct IP enforcement exposure
This case confirms that design patent holders are actively using Schedule A actions to pursue TikTok Shop sellers as a distinct enforcement channel. The court’s willingness to order TikTok to freeze funds and disable listings — without defendants present — signals that third-party platform compliance is now a live enforcement mechanism. Sellers sourcing fashion accessories for TikTok resale should treat design patent clearance as a pre-listing requirement, not an afterthought.
TikTok Shop: design patent risk is now directFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hexin Holding Limited | Individual | Fashion accessories IP holder — holder of USD0981078S, USD0933333S, and USD1066881SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous TikTok marketplace sellers listed on sealed Schedule ASearch 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 Edmond E. Chang | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment encompasses three distinct design patents and imposes obligations directly on TikTok as a third-party platform — an increasingly common feature of Schedule A actions in N.D. Ill. The court’s damages reasoning is notably transparent: rather than accepting the $10,000 request without scrutiny, Judge Chang grounded it in actual sales evidence (167 units × $32.05), acknowledging the absence of adversarial litigation as a limitation. The permanent injunction’s breadth — covering manufacture, distribution, advertising, and fund disposition — reflects standard Schedule A relief, but the explicit TikTok fund-release timeline (14 calendar days) gives the order immediate financial teeth.
USD0981078S, USD0933333S & USD1066881S — corset belt and support garment designs
The three asserted patents are U.S. design patents — USD0981078S (App. US29/805757), USD0933333S (App. US29/772761), and USD1066881S (App. US29/877074) — protecting the ornamental appearance of a corset belt, lace corset, and shaped support belt respectively. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the novel, ornamental characteristics of an article of manufacture rather than its functional aspects. Protection is assessed visually: infringement occurs when an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused design is the patented design.
In the fast-moving fashion accessories market — particularly for shapewear and waist-cinching garments sold through social commerce — design patents provide relatively rapid, low-cost protection against copycat listings. The three-patent cluster filed by Hexin suggests a deliberate strategy to fence in multiple aesthetic variations of its core corset and support belt product line. For competitors and TikTok resellers in the shapewear category, even minor visual similarity in waist-cinching or lace-panel designs may now trigger infringement exposure under the ordinary-observer test.
Should you run an FTO against USD0981078S, USD0933333S & USD1066881S?
Any company designing, sourcing, or reselling corset belts, lace corsets, or shaped support garments — particularly for TikTok Shop, Amazon, or other e-commerce channels — should evaluate freedom-to-operate against Hexin’s design patent portfolio. The ordinary-observer test for design patents is broad: product teams cannot rely on minor colour or material variations to avoid infringement. This case demonstrates that Hexin is actively enforcing, and that N.D. Ill. courts will enter default judgments swiftly against non-appearing sellers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD0981078S, USD0933333S, and USD1066881S against your product designs, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related Hexin design patent filings that could signal future enforcement targets. Running an FTO analysis before listing shapewear or corset products on social commerce platforms is now a commercially prudent pre-launch step given this enforcement record.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0981078S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Ill. fashion accessories
Cases below involve Schedule A design patent enforcement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting online marketplace sellers of fashion accessories and apparel.
What this case signals for the fashion accessories IP landscape
Schedule A design patent actions are evolving into a systematic TikTok enforcement playbook — this case shows how quickly they resolve.
TikTok’s compliance obligations now extend to fund seizure
Judge Chang’s order explicitly names TikTok as a bound third party required to freeze accounts, disable listings, and release funds within days. For brand owners, this confirms TikTok Shop is an enforceable enforcement vector — not just a notice-and-takedown platform. IP counsel should include TikTok-specific injunctive language in any Schedule A complaint template.
Sales-data-grounded royalties set a repeatable benchmark
The $10,000 royalty was anchored to 167 units at $32.05 — approximately a 187% royalty rate on gross revenue. While the absence of adversarial briefing limits precedential weight, this methodology suggests N.D. Ill. courts will scrutinise default royalty requests for evidentiary support. Plaintiffs should document TikTok sales volumes and price points before filing to support damages motions.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered default judgment in favour of Hexin Holding Limited on October 23, 2025. Defendants were found liable for infringement of three design patents. Hexin was awarded $10,000 in reasonable royalties under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a permanent injunction was entered, including orders binding TikTok to freeze and release defendants’ funds.
Three U.S. design patents are asserted: USD0981078S (Application US29/805757) covering a corset belt design; USD0933333S (Application US29/772761) covering a lace corset design; and USD1066881S (Application US29/877074) covering a shaped support belt design. All three protect ornamental appearance under 35 U.S.C. § 171.
Judge Chang grounded the reasonable royalty in actual TikTok sales data presented by Hexin: defendants reportedly sold 167 units of the infringing product at $32.05 each. Although no adversarial briefing occurred, the court found the $10,000 request reasonable in light of that sales evidence and a supporting declaration. The award was made under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
TikTok is ordered to: (1) within seven calendar days, cease displaying defendants’ advertisements and disable their marketplace accounts; (2) within seven calendar days, freeze any funds in defendants’ accounts up to the $10,000 damages award; and (3) within fourteen calendar days, release those funds to Hexin. The order binds TikTok as a third party with actual notice.
Defendants may move to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), which requires showing good cause, a meritorious defense, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. This is a high bar. However, if any defendant can demonstrate lack of notice or a substantive invalidity argument against the asserted design patents, a motion to vacate remains available. The court’s supplemental enforcement authority under Rule 69 continues until Hexin recovers full payment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.