1:25-cv-14271
Kotyk v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jonathan Kotyk (Florida)
- Defendant: Augeny (People's Republic of China or other foreign/domestic jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: D&A|RM DeWitty, U.S. Pat. Atty., LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14271, N.D. Ill., 01/16/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s operation of interactive commercial internet stores that target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including residents of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle gap filler products, sold online, infringe a patent related to a device designed to block the space between a vehicle seat and the center console.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the common problem of small items falling into the gap between a vehicle's front seat and its center console, providing a simple physical barrier to prevent this.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff, Jonathan Kotyk, is the assignee of the patent-in-suit, having acquired it from the original inventor on December 29, 2023.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-11-08 | ’314 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-11-06 | ’314 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2009-05-05 | ’314 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-12-29 | Patent Assignment to Plaintiff |
| 2026-01-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
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, titled “VEHICLE GAP GUARD,” issued May 5, 2009 (the "’314 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of loose articles, such as coins, pens, or cell phones, falling into the space between the side bolster of a vehicle seat and the adjacent center console, noting that attempts to retrieve such items while driving can be "extremely hazardous" (’314 Patent, col. 1:54-68).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "semi-rigid device" designed to occupy the gap between a vehicle seat and a compartment like the center console (’314 Patent, Abstract). It is contoured to fit the space, can be made of a compressible material for a "tight fitment," and may be removably attached to the seat so that it moves when the seat is adjusted (’314 Patent, col. 2:10-13, col. 2:61-68). The complaint includes a figure from the patent, showing the device installed in a vehicle to bridge the gap between the seat (21) and the center console (25) (Compl. ¶7).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a simple, aftermarket or original equipment solution to prevent a common inconvenience and potential safety hazard for vehicle occupants (’314 Patent, col. 2:5-13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of the ’314 Patent generally without specifying claims (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
- A "contoured vehicle space guard" shaped to fit the contour of a vehicle seat, with a front portion "contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat."
- A "cutout portion" on the guard to provide space for "fitment around vehicle seat-belts."
- An "attachment means" that allows the guard to "move in relation to the seat...in unison with the seat" when the seat is adjusted.
- The guard is "adapted for fitment into the space between the seat of the vehicle" 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 complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "knock-off products" sold through Defendant's numerous "Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶3, ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are described as automotive accessories "used to fit into empty space within a vehicle" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that the Defendant operates online stores under "fictitious names" to target and sell these "knock-off products" to consumers throughout the United States (Compl. ¶10-12). The complaint states that images of the accused products and a detailed infringement analysis are contained in a sealed Exhibit B, which was not publicly filed (Compl. ¶8, ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a sealed claim-chart exhibit that is not provided (Compl. ¶8). The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant makes, uses, sells, or imports "knock-off products" that practice the invention claimed in the ’314 Patent (Compl. ¶18). The complaint asserts these products are "automotive design element[s] used to fit into empty space within a vehicle," directly corresponding to the purpose of the patented invention (Compl. ¶8). A figure from the patent is included to show an "image of the claimed utility invention" in its intended environment, bridging the gap between a vehicle seat and the center console (Compl. ¶7). However, the complaint itself provides no specific mapping of accused product features to the limitations of any asserted patent claim.
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations are general. A central question will be whether the accused products meet every limitation of the asserted claims. For example, do the accused products possess an "attachment means" that causes the product to move "in unison with the seat," as required by claim 1, or do they simply rest in the gap via friction?
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technical operation of the accused products. Key questions will involve the physical characteristics of the accused products: Do they have a front portion that is specifically "contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat"? Do they incorporate a "cutout portion" for a seat belt?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "attachment means"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires an "attachment means" that performs the function of allowing the guard to "move in unison with the seat." The existence and functionality of such a feature on the accused products will be a critical infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term because many commercially available gap fillers rely solely on a friction fit, which may not meet this functional requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses "a plurality of different attachment means," including "an adhesive, screws, frictional attachment and the like," as well as hook-and-loop fasteners like Velcro (’314 Patent, col. 7:5-9). This language may support a broad definition covering various methods of connection.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the claim's functional language—requiring that the means "allows the vehicle space guard to move...in unison with the seat"—necessitates a structure that provides a positive, secure connection, rather than incidental "frictional attachment" that may or may not result in co-movement.
The Term: "front portion is contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat"
- Context and Importance: This term defines a specific shape for the front of the device. Whether the accused products possess this specific contour will be a factual question central to infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 1, depict a device with a generally curved front portion (3) that follows the shape of the seat (’314 Patent, Fig. 1). A plaintiff could argue any such corresponding curvature meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue the phrase "wrap around" requires a more specific shape than merely being adjacent to a curve. This language may be interpreted to require a feature that partially envelops or clasps the edge of the seat, a more specific structure than a simple contoured edge.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement without pleading specific underlying facts, such as identifying instructions or advertisements that would encourage infringing use (Compl. ¶18).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant "knowingly and willfully" selling infringing products (Compl. ¶14). The complaint further alleges that Defendant created its online stores "to appear as if selling licensed products while actually and knowingly marketing, selling, and/or distributing the same knock-off products," which suggests an allegation of pre-suit knowledge based on deliberate copying (Compl. ¶3, ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint’s infringement contentions rely entirely on a sealed exhibit. A key question will be whether the plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products meet every element of the asserted claims, particularly the specific structural ("cutout portion") and functional ("attachment means") limitations.
- A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: The case may turn on the construction of the term "attachment means." The court’s determination of whether this requires a distinct physical connector that ensures movement "in unison with the seat"—or if a simple friction fit is sufficient—will likely be dispositive for infringement.