Kotyk v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jonathan Kotyk (Florida)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A (Jurisdictions unspecified, believed to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: D&A|R.M. DeWitty, U.S. Pat Atty., LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12456, N.D. Ill., 10/10/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants target business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive commercial internet stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell “knock-off” products that infringe a patent related to a device designed to fill the gap between a vehicle seat and the center console.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of automotive interior accessories, specifically devices intended to prevent small items from falling into hard-to-reach spaces within a vehicle.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned from the inventor, R. Dale Pelfrey, to the Plaintiff, Jonathan Kotyk, on December 29, 2023, establishing the Plaintiff's standing to bring this action.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-11-08	’314 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App.)
2006-11-06	’314 Patent Application Filing Date
2009-05-05	’314 Patent Issue Date
2023-12-29	’314 Patent assigned to Plaintiff Jonathan Kotyk
2025-10-10	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,527,314 - VEHICLE GAP GUARD

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the common problem of loose articles, such as coins, pens, or mobile phones, falling into the space between a vehicle’s seat bolster and the center console, creating a distraction or hazard if a driver attempts to retrieve them while operating the vehicle (’314 Patent, col. 1:56-68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a semi-rigid, contoured device designed to fit into and occupy the gap between the vehicle seat and a nearby compartment like a center console (’314 Patent, Abstract). As depicted in Figure 2 of the patent, the device acts as a barrier to prevent the accidental loss of articles in this space, and it may include features like a cutout for a seatbelt buckle and an attachment mechanism to allow it to move with the seat as it is adjusted (’314 Patent, col. 6:36-45, col. 7:46-54).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a simple, aftermarket solution to a common vehicular inconvenience, aiming to improve driver safety and convenience by preventing the misplacement of small items (’314 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• While the complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, independent claim 1 is the broadest and serves as a representative claim for analysis (Compl. ¶23).
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • A contoured vehicle space guard shaped to fit the contour of an existing vehicle seat.
  • The guard has top, bottom, side, front, and rear portions, with the front portion “contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat.”
  • The guard is adapted for “removable attachment” to a vehicle seat.
  • A “cutout portion” is provided on the guard for fitment around vehicle seatbelts.
  • An “attachment means” that allows the guard to move in unison with the seat when the seat is moved forward.
  • The guard is adapted to fit in the space between the seat and a nearby compartment to “eliminate the loss of loose articles.”
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are described as “knock-off products” that infringe the ’314 Patent (Compl. ¶3, ¶10). The complaint alleges that the Defendants sell “the same knock-off products” through various online stores (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are an “automotive design element used to fit into empty space within a vehicle” (Compl. ¶8). It further characterizes the Defendants as an “interrelated group of infringers” who use tactics to conceal their identities while selling these products through online marketplaces such as Amazon, TEMU, Walmart, and eBay (Compl. ¶11, ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products, instead incorporating by reference a “detailed claim analysis” in Exhibit C, which was filed under seal and is not publicly available (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a sealed Exhibit C containing a detailed claims analysis which is not available for public review (Compl. ¶8). The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the general allegations in the complaint. The complaint provides an illustrative figure from the patent, showing the claimed invention installed between a vehicle seat and a center console (Compl. p. 4).

’314 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A contoured vehicle space guard whereby the contour is shaped to fit the contour of an existing vehicle seat...	The accused products are alleged to be knock-offs designed as an “automotive design element used to fit into empty space within a vehicle.”	¶8, ¶10	col. 8:29-31
...said front portion is contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat...	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, but alleges the products are knock-offs of the patented invention.	¶3, ¶8	col. 8:35-37
...a cutout portion provided on the vehicle space guard that provides adequate space for fitment around vehicle seat-belts...	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific structural element.	¶8, ¶10	col. 8:38-41
...an attachment means whereby the attachment means allows the vehicle space guard to move in relation to the seat whereby when a user desires to move the seat forward, the guard moves in unison with the seat...	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific functional element.	¶8, ¶10	col. 8:45-49
...a compartment in close proximity to the seat of the vehicle such that the space guard is adapted to eliminate the loss of loose articles.	The accused products are alleged to be sold for the purpose of fitting into the gap between a vehicle seat and console to prevent the loss of items.	¶8	col. 8:50-53

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products, sold by numerous online sellers, all practice every limitation of the asserted claim. For example, the claim requires a specific "attachment means" that allows the guard to move "in unison with the seat." It is a point for factual determination whether products that rely solely on a friction or compression fit, without a distinct attachment feature, meet this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary challenge for the plaintiff may be demonstrating that the accused "knock-off" products contain the specific structural features recited in Claim 1, such as the "cutout portion" for seatbelts and the front portion "contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat." The complaint does not provide visual or descriptive evidence of the accused products to substantiate these allegations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "attachment means"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in a "means-plus-function" format, which under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) limits its scope to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent specification and their equivalents. The construction of this term is critical because it may define a key point of non-infringement if the accused products achieve their positioning through a mechanism different from those disclosed, such as a simple compression fit.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might point to the specification’s disclosure of "a plurality of different attachment means," including "an adhesive, screws, frictional attachment and the like," to argue for a range of covered structures (’314 Patent, col. 7:6-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party would argue the term’s scope is strictly limited to the specific structures disclosed—a "hook system such as VELCRO," adhesives, screws, or a distinct frictional attachment component—and their structural equivalents, but not a mere incidental friction fit from the device's material properties (’314 Patent, col. 7:5-9).

• The Term: "front portion is contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this phrase will determine the required geometry of the front of the device. Practitioners may focus on this term because the degree of "wrapping" required could distinguish the claimed invention from simpler, less-shaped gap fillers.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "generally curved front portion 3," which, when viewed with the drawings, could support an interpretation that any shape generally following the curve of a seat edge meets the limitation (’314 Patent, col. 5:67-col. 6:1; Fig. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "wrap around" implies more than a simple curve and requires a shape that partially envelops or embraces the front corner of the seat, as suggested by the perspective in Figure 2, thereby narrowing the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct and indirect infringement (Compl. ¶18, ¶23). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as alleging that Defendants’ instructions or advertisements encourage an infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶18, ¶19). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be that Defendants are selling "the same knock-off products" and are part of an "interrelated group of infringers," rather than specific knowledge of the ’314 Patent prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶3, ¶11).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the plaintiff establish, on a product-by-product basis for a diverse group of online sellers, that the accused "knock-off" products meet every specific structural and functional limitation of the asserted claim, such as the "attachment means" allowing unison movement with the seat and the "cutout portion" for seatbelts?
• A central legal question will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe the "attachment means" limitation? A narrow construction, limited to the explicit structures disclosed in the specification, could create a viable non-infringement defense for products that are held in place solely by compression or incidental friction without a separate attachment component.
• Finally, a significant practical question, common to "Schedule A" complaints against numerous foreign online sellers, will be enforceability: Beyond the technical and legal merits, the case will involve the procedural challenges of effecting service, obtaining discovery from, and enforcing any potential judgment against the named and unnamed entities.