DCT
1:25-cv-14271
Kotyk v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations Identfied In Schedule A
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jonathan Kotyk (Florida)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: D&A|RM DeWitty, U.S. Pat. Atty., LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14271, N.D. Ill., 11/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants target business activities to consumers in Illinois through interactive commercial internet stores, offer shipping to Illinois, and have sold products to residents of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell “knock-off” automotive accessories that infringe a patent related to a device for blocking the gap between a vehicle seat and the center console.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the common problem of small items, such as keys or phones, falling into the difficult-to-reach gap between a car's front seat and its center console.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit was assigned from the inventor, R. Dale Pelfrey, to the Plaintiff, Jonathan Kotyk, on December 29, 2023. The Defendants are a group of unnamed online sellers, identified under seal, who are alleged to be an interrelated group of infringers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,527,314 Priority Date (Provisional) |
| 2006-11-06 | U.S. Patent No. 7,527,314 Filing Date |
| 2009-05-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,527,314 Issued |
| 2023-12-29 | Patent assigned from inventor to Plaintiff |
| 2025-11-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,527,314, “VEHICLE GAP GUARD,” issued May 5, 2009 (’314 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem that arises from the space typically present between the side bolster of a vehicle seat and the center console, into which loose articles like change, receipts, or cell phones can be lost. Retrieving these items while driving can be hazardous (’314 Patent, col. 1:53-68).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "semi-rigid device" designed to fit into and occupy the gap between the vehicle seat and the next closest compartment, such as the center console, to prevent articles from falling into that space (’314 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-22). As depicted in the patent’s figures, the device is an elongated, contoured guard that slots into the gap, often including a cutout to accommodate the seat belt buckle (’314 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The invention offers a simple, aftermarket solution to a common annoyance for vehicle occupants, preventing the loss of small items and the potential distraction of trying to retrieve them while driving (’314 Patent, col. 1:64-68).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the ’314 Patent generally without identifying specific claims (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim.
- Independent Claim 1 Elements:
- A contoured vehicle space guard shaped to fit the contour of an existing vehicle seat, with top, bottom, first/second side, and front/rear portions, where the front portion is contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat.
- At least one portion of the guard is adapted for removable attachment to a seat.
- A cutout portion on the guard that provides adequate space for fitment around vehicle seat-belts.
- The space guard is adapted for fitment into the space between the seat and a compartment.
- An attachment means that allows the guard to move in relation to the seat, such that when a user moves the seat forward, the guard moves in unison.
- A compartment in close proximity to the seat such that the guard is adapted 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 unidentified "knock-off products" sold by Defendants through various online stores (Compl. ¶3, ¶10).
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 alleges that Defendants sell "the same knock-off products" across numerous online storefronts, suggesting a single product type is at issue (Compl. ¶3). The complaint includes a figure from the patent illustrating the device installed between a vehicle seat and the center console (Compl. p. 4).
- The complaint alleges Defendants operate "fully interactive, commercial online marketplaces" on platforms such as Amazon, TEMU, Walmart, and eBay to sell these products to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶2, ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint states that a "detailed claim analysis" is provided in a sealed Exhibit C, which is not publicly available (Compl. ¶8). The public-facing allegations are general, stating that Defendants sell "knock-off products that infringe directly and/or indirectly" the ’314 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for independent claim 1 based on the available allegations.
’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, said space guard having a top portion, bottom portion...and a front portion and rear portion... | The complaint alleges Defendants sell "knock-off" products described as automotive design elements used to fit into empty space within a vehicle (Compl. ¶8). | ¶3, ¶8, ¶23 | col. 7:29-36 |
| 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 element, beyond the general allegation that the products are "knock-offs." | ¶3, ¶8, ¶23 | col. 7:39-41 |
| 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 element, beyond the general allegation that the products are "knock-offs." | ¶3, ¶8, ¶23 | col. 7:44-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The central issue will be proving, on a technical level, that the "knock-off" products sold by a multitude of anonymous entities in fact practice every limitation of the asserted claim(s). The complaint's reliance on a sealed exhibit and general allegations leaves open the question of what specific evidence Plaintiff will present for each element.
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused products, even if they fill the gap, possess the specific "attachment means" that "allows the vehicle space guard to move in relation to the seat...in unison," as required by claim 1.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "contoured...shaped to fit the contour of an existing vehicle seat"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the scope of the claim, defining the required relationship between the device and the vehicle's interior. The degree of "fit" required will be a critical point of contention, determining whether generic or loosely fitting gap fillers fall within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a versatile design, stating that "a singular device may be shaped to fit most makes and models of vehicles" (’314 Patent, col. 2:9-10). This language could support an argument that the term does not require a precise, custom fit for a specific seat.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself ties the shape to "the contour of an existing vehicle seat," and the specification notes the device may be "contoured for adaption and proper fitment" (’314 Patent, col. 6:29-30). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more specific and complementary shape.
The Term: "a cutout portion...that provides adequate space for fitment around vehicle seat-belts"
Context and Importance: The definition of "adequate space" is inherently subjective and will likely be disputed. This term's construction will determine what types of openings or notches in the accused products satisfy this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that any cutout that allows the device to be installed without obstructing the seatbelt provides "adequate space," regardless of its size or shape.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict a specific, U-shaped notch (element 41) to accommodate the seat belt hardware (’314 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 6:36-39). This embodiment could be used to argue that "adequate space" requires a feature specifically designed and shaped for seat belt hardware, not just a generic opening.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶18, ¶23) but does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for inducement or contributory infringement, such as references to user instructions or knowledge of specific infringing uses.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale and sold "knock-off products" (Compl. ¶11, ¶18, ¶19). The complaint does not allege specific facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patent itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the large number of unnamed defendants operating online storefronts, can the Plaintiff demonstrate with particularity that the accused "knock-off" products sold by each defendant meet every limitation of the asserted patent claim(s)?
- A key question of claim scope will be whether the accused products incorporate the specific functional limitations of claim 1, particularly the "attachment means" that allows the guard to move "in unison with the seat," or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.
- A potential procedural question may arise regarding whether the complaint's general allegations against a wide array of unidentified sellers, with the technical infringement details filed under seal, are sufficient to proceed without amendment.