DCT

1:25-cv-14271

Kotyk v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations Identfied In Schedule A

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Kotyk v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Amended Schedule A, 1:25-cv-14271, N.D. Ill., 12/30/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants target business activities toward U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through "fully interactive, commercial Internet stores" and have sold accused products to Illinois residents.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers, identified under seal, are selling "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 addresses the common problem of small items falling into the difficult-to-reach space between a car seat and the center console, providing a barrier to prevent such occurrences.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Jonathan Kotyk is the assignee of the patent-in-suit, having acquired it from the inventor, R. Dale Pelfrey, via an assignment contract executed on December 29, 2023. The complaint is filed against a large number of unidentified online sellers, a common strategy in cases targeting diffuse e-commerce infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-11-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,527,314 Priority Date (Provisional)
2006-11-06 U.S. Patent No. 7527314 Filed
2009-05-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,527,314 Issued
2023-12-29 Patent-in-suit assigned to Plaintiff Jonathan Kotyk
2025-12-30 Amended Complaint Filed

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

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

  • 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 of loose articles (e.g., change, pens, cell phones) falling into the space between the outer portion of a vehicle seat and the adjacent center console, creating a distraction or hazard for the driver who may try to retrieve them while driving (’314 Patent, col. 1:53-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "convenience device" designed to fit into and occupy that gap (’314 Patent, col. 2:16-22). As described in the specification, it is a semi-rigid, contoured guard, potentially made of a compressible material like foam, that can be inserted between the seat and console to act as a barrier (’314 Patent, col. 2:17-18, 5:48-50). Key features include a shape that conforms to the seat contour, a cutout to accommodate seat belt hardware, and a top surface that may be recessed to catch and retain dropped items (’314 Patent, col. 6:3-25, 6:35-39). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates the device installed in its intended environment.
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a simple, aftermarket mechanical solution to a persistent and potentially unsafe annoyance for vehicle occupants (’314 Patent, col. 2:5-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the ’314 Patent generally, and while it does not specify claims, such complaints typically proceed on the basis of at least the independent claims (Compl. ¶23). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim.
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • A contoured vehicle space guard shaped to fit the contour of an existing vehicle seat, with a front portion contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat.
    • The guard has portions adapted for removable attachment to a vehicle seat.
    • A cutout portion on the guard to provide space for fitment around vehicle seat belts.
    • The guard is adapted for fitment into the space between the seat and a nearby compartment (e.g., center console).
    • An "attachment means" that allows the guard to move in unison with the seat when the seat is adjusted forward or backward.
    • The guard is adapted to eliminate the loss of loose articles into the gap.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as "knock-off" versions of the patented "VEHICLE GAP GUARD" sold by Defendants through various online stores (Compl. ¶3, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" who sell "the same product" across numerous online storefronts on platforms such as Amazon, TEMU, Walmart, and eBay (Compl. ¶11, 17). The complaint provides a figure taken from the patent to illustrate the "claimed utility invention," implying the accused products embody this design (Compl. p. 4). The pleading asserts these are "knock-off products" intended to copy Plaintiff's invention, which was "first to market" (Compl. ¶3, 7). The complaint does not provide specific technical details of the accused products themselves, instead referring to a sealed Exhibit C for a "detailed claim analysis" and images of the products (Compl. ¶8, 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a sealed "Exhibit C" containing a "detailed claim analysis" and images of the accused products, but this exhibit was not publicly filed (Compl. ¶8). The public complaint itself contains only general and conclusory allegations of infringement without mapping specific product features to claim elements. It states that Defendants "readily infringe the patented invention" by selling "knock-off products that infringe directly and/or indirectly" the invention claimed in the ’314 Patent (Compl. ¶8, 23). The complaint includes a figure from the patent, showing the invention installed, to represent the technology at issue (Compl. p. 4). Without access to Exhibit C or more detailed allegations, a substantive analysis of the infringement theory is not possible from the public record.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Based on the patent's claims and the general nature of the dispute, several points of contention may arise once the accused products are analyzed.
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products, often simple foam inserts, include every element of Claim 1. For instance, do they possess an "attachment means" that allows the guard to "move in unison with the seat," or do they rely solely on a friction fit that may not satisfy this limitation?
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the Plaintiff possess that the "knock-off products" sold by each of the numerous, anonymous Defendants are structurally and functionally identical to one another and meet all limitations of the asserted claim, particularly the "attachment means" and the specific "contoured" shape required to "wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "attachment means"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 as 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." This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products contain these specific structures or their equivalents.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that various attachment methods could be equivalent. The specification mentions that a "plurality of different attachment means may be utilized including an adhesive, screws, frictional attachment and the like" (’314 Patent, col. 7:7-9). This list could support arguments for equivalence beyond the primary embodiment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary structure disclosed for performing the function of moving with the seat is an "attachment means 51," which is explicitly described as a "hook system such as VELCRO" (’314 Patent, col. 7:5-6, Fig. 3). A defendant could argue the claim is limited to hook-and-loop fasteners and their structural equivalents, potentially excluding products that rely only on compression or a simple friction fit.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants' products infringe "directly and/or indirectly" and seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. ¶18, 27(b)). The factual basis for these allegations is not detailed beyond the act of selling the accused products.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" and that their infringement was willful (Compl. ¶11, 18, 19). The complaint does not specify whether this knowledge is alleged to be pre- or post-suit.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Is the "attachment means" limitation of Claim 1 confined to the disclosed VELCRO-type fastener and its direct structural equivalents, or can it be construed more broadly to cover products that are held in place purely by friction or compression? The answer to this question may be dispositive for many of the accused "knock-off" products.
  • A second key question will be evidentiary and procedural: Can the Plaintiff meet its burden of proof to show that each of the numerous, anonymously operated online stores identified in Schedule A sold a product that meets every limitation of the asserted claim, and can the Plaintiff successfully link these disparate storefronts into a single "interrelated group"?
  • Finally, a central factual question will be one of technical operation: Do the accused products, in practice, actually "move in unison with the seat" when the seat is adjusted, as required by the claim's functional language, or do they remain stationary or shift in a way that falls outside the claimed function?