Jonathan Black Kotyk v. Jeffrey Simon

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jonathan Black Kotyk (Florida)
  • Defendant: Jeffrey Simon; Drop Stop, LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Law Offices Of Christopher M. Keller
• Case Identification: Jonathan Black Kotyk v. Jeffrey Simon, et al., 2:26-cv-05158, C.D. Cal., 07/16/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendants reside in the district, maintain a regular and established place of business there, and have committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "Drop Stop Seat Gap Filler" product infringes a patent related to a device for preventing items from falling into the gap between a vehicle seat and a center console.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the common problem in the automotive accessory market of small items being lost in the gap next to a vehicle's seat.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Simon had prior knowledge of the patent-in-suit from his involvement in the prosecution of a separate, Drop Stop-related patent application (U.S. Application No. 11/749,354), during which he allegedly submitted a declaration discussing Plaintiff's patent. This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for the willfulness and indirect infringement claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-11-08	'314 Patent Priority Date
2009-05-05	'314 Patent Issue Date
2022-01-01 (on or after)	Alleged date since which Drop Stop instructions included use of attachment means
2026-07-16	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,527,314 ("'314 Patent"), titled "Vehicle Gap Guard," issued on May 5, 2009 Compl. ¶2 '314 Patent, cover page

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the problem of miscellaneous articles, such as cell phones, pens, or coins, falling into the space between a vehicle seat bolster and the adjacent center console, which can be hazardous if the driver attempts to retrieve them while operating the vehicle '314 Patent, col. 1:54-65
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a semi-rigid, contoured device designed to fit into and block this gap '314 Patent, abstract It is shaped to fit the contour of a vehicle seat and includes a cutout to accommodate the seatbelt hardware '314 Patent, col. 6:30-40 A key aspect is an "attachment means," such as Velcro, which removably affixes the guard to the vehicle seat, allowing it to move in unison with the seat as it is adjusted forward or backward '314 Patent, col. 6:54-62 '314 Patent, Fig. 3
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a simple and effective aftermarket solution to prevent the loss of personal items in a common vehicle trouble spot, enhancing convenience and safety '314 Patent, col. 2:6-12

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least the independent claims of the '314 Patent Compl. ¶53
• Independent Claim 1 (device):
  • A contoured vehicle space guard shaped to fit an existing vehicle seat contour, with a front portion contoured to wrap around the seat's edge.
  • The guard is adapted for removable attachment to a vehicle seat.
  • A cutout portion to provide space for fitment around vehicle seatbelts.
  • An attachment means that allows the guard to move in unison with the seat when the seat is adjusted.
  • The guard is adapted to eliminate the loss of loose articles in the gap.
• Independent Claim 14 (method):
  • A method for using a convenience vehicle device comprising steps of providing a contoured space guard with a cutout portion and an attachment means for removably attaching it to a seat.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶57

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Drop Stop Seat Gap Filler" and "materially similar products" sold by Defendants (collectively, the "Accused Product") Compl. ¶3

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Product as a vehicle seat gap filler that is installed in the space between a vehicle seat and an adjacent console Compl. ¶¶26-27
• The product is alleged to have features corresponding to the patented invention, including a curved front portion and a cutout for a seatbelt holder Compl. ¶27
• A central allegation is that the instructions accompanying the Accused Product direct users to employ an "attachment means such as Velcro or double-sided tape which attaches between the Accused Product and the vehicle seat" Compl. ¶27 The complaint references an exhibit containing product instructions that allegedly show the infringing installation. For example, the complaint describes instructions, referenced as Exhibit F, that allegedly show an attachment means like Velcro being used to attach the product to the vehicle seat Compl. ¶27

IV. Analysis of Infringement 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 front portion is contoured to wrap around the edge of a vehicle seat	The Accused Product is a vehicle gap guard configured to fit the space between a seat and console, allegedly exhibiting a curve in its front portion when installed.	¶27	col. 6:30-34
a cutout portion provided on the vehicle space guard that provides adequate space for fitment around vehicle seatbelts	The Accused Product is alleged to have a "cutout portion for fitment around a seatbelt holder."	¶27	col. 6:36-40
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	Defendants' instructions allegedly direct users to use an "attachment means such as Velcro or double-sided tape" to attach the Accused Product to the vehicle seat.	¶27; Compl. ¶65	col. 6:54-62

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that Defendants' instructions direct users to add an "attachment means" (e.g., tape or Velcro) Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶31 This raises the question of whether providing instructions to use a common, off-the-shelf item to complete a claimed combination constitutes infringement of a device claim that recites the "attachment means" as an element. The analysis may turn on whether the accused product as sold contains the "attachment means" or if infringement can be established through inducement.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires that the "attachment means" allows the guard to "move in unison with the seat." A factual question for the court will be whether the attachment method allegedly taught by Defendants' instructions (e.g., applying double-sided tape) actually performs this specific function or if there is a technical mismatch between the taught implementation and the functional requirement of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "attachment means"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical to the dispute. The complaint alleges that Defendants began instructing customers to use an "attachment means" after having knowledge of the '314 Patent, which forms a basis for the indirect and willful infringement claims Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶36 The construction of this term will determine whether the product as sold, or as used according to the instructions, meets this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the "attachment means" can be "a hook system such as VELCRO," "an adhesive," or other methods including "screws, frictional attachment and the like" '314 Patent, col. 7:5-9 This broad disclosure could support an argument that instructing the use of a common item like double-sided tape falls within the scope of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites the "attachment means" as part of the device and requires it to perform a specific function: allowing the guard to "move in unison with the seat" '314 Patent, cl. 1 A defendant may argue this requires a more robust connection than simple tape and that the term implies a component included with the device, not an item to be supplied by the end-user. Figure 3 also depicts the "attachment means (51)" as an integral part of the illustrated embodiment '314 Patent, Fig. 3

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement Compl. ¶¶62-78 The theory for inducement is that Defendants provide marketing materials and instructions that "instruct and encourage" customers to install and use the Accused Product with an attachment means (like Velcro or tape) in a manner that directly infringes the '314 Patent Compl. ¶65 Knowledge is alleged based on Defendant Simon's participation in a separate patent prosecution where the '314 Patent was discussed Compl. ¶68
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement was willful, deliberate, and egregious Compl. ¶80 The basis for this allegation is Defendants' purported pre-suit knowledge of the '314 Patent, allegedly obtained during the prosecution of a Drop Stop-related patent application, and their subsequent continued marketing of the Accused Product with instructions that allegedly encourage infringing use Compl. ¶¶81-82

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

• The "Attachment Means" Doctrine: A core issue will be one of claim scope and infringement doctrine: is the "attachment means" limitation of claim 1 met when the manufacturer of the accused device merely provides instructions for the end-user to add a common staple item, like double-sided tape, to create the complete, infringing configuration? This will likely be a central battleground for both claim construction and the application of indirect infringement principles.
• Proving Knowledge and Intent: The claims for indirect and willful infringement hinge on Plaintiff's ability to prove Defendants' state of mind. A key evidentiary question will be whether Defendant Simon's alleged knowledge of the '314 Patent from a prior, separate patent prosecution is sufficient to establish the specific intent to induce infringement and the "egregious" conduct required for enhanced damages.
• Functional Performance: An important factual dispute may arise over whether the accused configuration, when assembled per the instructions, actually performs the claimed function of allowing the guard to "move in unison with the seat." The case may require technical evidence comparing the functional behavior of the accused product with the specific limitations recited in the patent's claims.