Hexin Holding v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 63 Days
Hexin Holding Limited obtained a default judgment against anonymous online marketplace sellers accused of infringing design patent USD0933333S — a shaped support belt — sold through Amazon, Temu, and TikTok. The court granted a permanent injunction and ordered fund seizure from defendants’ marketplace accounts within 63 days of filing.
Schedule A design patent enforcement ends in swift default judgment
On September 19, 2025, Hexin Holding Limited filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Thomas M. Durkin, asserting infringement of design patent USD0933333S (App. No. 29/772761), which covers a shaped support belt. The defendants — identified only as the partnerships and unincorporated associations on Schedule A — are the anonymous online sellers commonly targeted in so-called ‘Schedule A’ enforcement actions, operating storefronts on Amazon, Temu, and TikTok.
Because defendants failed to appear or respond, Hexin moved for entry of default and default judgment. The court granted the motion on November 21, 2025. The judgment includes a permanent injunction barring defendants from selling, importing, or facilitating the sale of any product embodying the design patent, and orders Amazon, Temu, and TikTok to freeze and transfer defendants’ account funds to plaintiff within seven to fourteen calendar days of receiving the order. Damages were calculated as infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
The 63-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated timeline typical of Schedule A default actions in N.D. Illinois, where plaintiffs frequently obtain TROs and proceed to default judgment without defendant participation. The public record does not disclose the specific damages amounts awarded to each defendant alias, nor whether any defendant subsequently moved to vacate the default. The speed of resolution and the direct fund-seizure mechanism from marketplace accounts suggest Hexin pursued this action primarily to disrupt ongoing infringing sales rather than to recover large monetary damages from any single seller.
Filing to Default Judgment in 63 days
63 days — fast resolution via default; typical N.D. Illinois patent cases run 18–24 months
Default judgment granted: permanent injunction and fund seizure ordered
Default judgment: what it means when defendants don’t appear
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when defendants fail to plead or otherwise defend. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and fashions relief accordingly. Here, that relief includes a permanent injunction and mandatory asset transfer — entered without any adversarial merits determination. The judgment is enforceable but can be challenged by defendants through a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate.
No merits contest — procedural winHexin secures injunction and direct account seizure across three platforms
Hexin obtains a permanent injunction enforceable against Amazon, Temu, and TikTok directly, requiring fund freezes and transfers within 7–14 days. Damages are calculated as defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — a design-patent-specific remedy that can capture the infringer’s entire article profit, not just the patented feature’s contribution. Hexin retains ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Rule 69 until full recovery.
Injunction + § 289 profits awardedDefaulting sellers face account freezes and permanent marketplace bans
Defendants who failed to respond now face permanent injunctions, frozen marketplace accounts, and fund transfers to plaintiff — all without any opportunity to contest infringement or challenge patent validity. Any defendant wishing to challenge the judgment must file a Rule 60(b) motion showing good cause for the default and a meritorious defense. The broader Schedule A mechanism means additional seller aliases may be added through supplemental proceedings.
Default — Rule 60(b) challenge availablePlatform liability and the Schedule A enforcement model intensify
This case is consistent with a growing wave of design patent Schedule A actions in N.D. Illinois targeting marketplace sellers. The direct-freeze mechanism against Amazon, Temu, and TikTok underscores that platforms face mandatory compliance obligations once served with such orders. For marketplace sellers of support belts, braces, and similar wearable goods, design patent clearance checks before listing products have become commercially essential to avoid account-level exposure.
Marketplace enforcement risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hexin Holding Limited | Individual | Consumer goods IP holder — holder of design patent USD0933333S (shaped support belt)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers (Schedule A) operating on Amazon, Temu, and TikTokSearch 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 Thomas M. Durkin | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order is expansive in scope: it enjoins not only the named defendants but all persons acting in concert with them, and it directly binds Amazon, Temu, and TikTok as third-party platform operators. Because no defendant contested the action, the court accepted Hexin’s allegations as true without a merits hearing. The § 289 damages award — calculated per-defendant from a schedule not publicly disclosed — reflects the design patent’s unique total-profits remedy. Defendants retain the procedural right to seek vacatur under Rule 60(b), but must demonstrate both excusable neglect and a meritorious defense to succeed.
USD0933333S — shaped support belt design patent
USD0933333S (application no. 29/772761) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a shaped support belt. Design patents cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture — in this case, the specific aesthetic form of a wearable support product. Design patent applications in the 29/ series are typically prosecuted on an expedited basis and can issue within 12–18 months of filing. The patent gives Hexin the exclusive right to the protected ornamental design for a 15-year term from grant.
Support belts, back braces, and wearable orthopedic accessories are a heavily commoditised category on cross-border e-commerce platforms, making design patent enforcement particularly commercially valuable. A single recognisable design can anchor a product line’s market identity, and the Schedule A enforcement mechanism allows holders to act against dozens of infringing storefronts simultaneously. Competitors and OEM manufacturers producing similar shaped support belts — particularly those selling on Amazon, Temu, or TikTok Shop — face meaningful infringement exposure if their product’s ornamental appearance is substantially similar to the protected design.
Should your shaped support belt clear USD0933333S before listing?
Any manufacturer, importer, or marketplace seller of shaped support belts, back braces, or similar wearable support articles should assess whether their product’s ornamental design is substantially similar to USD0933333S. The ‘ordinary observer’ test for design patent infringement is broad — minor functional differences do not provide a safe harbour if the overall visual impression is similar. Given the direct-freeze enforcement mechanism demonstrated in this case, a listing that triggers a Schedule A action can result in account suspension and frozen funds before any legal hearing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental design landscape around USD0933333S, identify design-around opportunities, and flag pending design applications in the wearable support and orthopedic brace category. Eureka’s design patent analytics surface similar ornamental design registrations globally, helping product and IP teams assess clearance risk before entering the market — not after receiving a TRO.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0933333S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent Schedule A actions against anonymous marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, covering wearable goods and consumer accessories.
What this case signals for the wearable goods IP enforcement landscape
Schedule A design patent actions in N.D. Illinois continue to offer IP holders a fast, low-cost path to injunctions and fund seizures against anonymous marketplace sellers.
Design patents are potent offensive tools against marketplace infringers
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, design patent holders can claim an infringer’s total profits from the sale of an infringing article — a broader remedy than utility patent damages. Combined with the Schedule A default mechanism, this creates a highly efficient enforcement model for consumer goods IP holders like Hexin.
Amazon, Temu, and TikTok face direct compliance obligations under N.D. Illinois orders
Courts in this district routinely name marketplace platforms as third-party recipients of injunctions, requiring fund freezes and account disabling within days of receiving the order. Product teams and marketplace operators selling wearable support products should treat design patent clearance as a listing prerequisite, not an afterthought.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois granted Hexin Holding’s motion for default judgment on November 21, 2025. The court issued a permanent injunction against the defaulting defendants and ordered Amazon, Temu, and TikTok to freeze and transfer defendants’ account funds to Hexin within 7–14 days. Damages were awarded as infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
The case involves U.S. design patent USD0933333S (application no. 29/772761), which protects the ornamental design of a shaped support belt. Design patents in the U.S. cover the visual appearance of an article of manufacture and carry a 15-year term from grant, with infringement assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard.
A Schedule A action is an enforcement mechanism used in N.D. Illinois where plaintiffs sue groups of anonymous online marketplace sellers — identified by seller alias rather than legal name — for IP infringement. It allows plaintiffs to obtain ex parte TROs and, if defendants default, rapid default judgments with fund-freeze orders directed at platforms like Amazon, Temu, and TikTok.
Section 289 allows a design patent holder to recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of any article to which the infringing design has been applied. Unlike utility patent damages, § 289 does not require apportionment to the patented feature — the entire article profit can be awarded. The Supreme Court’s Samsung v. Apple (2016) decision clarified that the ‘article of manufacture’ can in some cases be a component, but for simple consumer goods this distinction rarely limits recovery.
Yes. A defendant subject to a default judgment may file a motion to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing excusable neglect or other grounds. To succeed, the defendant must also demonstrate a meritorious defence — for example, non-infringement or patent invalidity. Courts have discretion to vacate and reopen proceedings, but the burden falls entirely on the defaulting defendant to initiate the challenge.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.