Kotyk v. Schedule A Defendants: Vehicle Gap Guard Patent Case Dismissed in 39 Days
Jonathan Kotyk filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of US7527314B2, a patent covering a vehicle gap guard product, against a Schedule A roster of unnamed online marketplace sellers. The case closed 39 days after filing when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice, with no defendant having entered an appearance.
A rapid Schedule A enforcement action ends before defendants appeared
On October 10, 2025, Jonathan Kotyk, represented by Dewitty and Associates, Chtd., filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Robert W. Gettleman. The complaint targeted a group of defendants identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A’ — a common enforcement structure used against e-commerce marketplace sellers. The asserted patent, US7527314B2, covers a vehicle gap guard, an automotive accessory designed to fill gaps in vehicle interiors.
The case closed on November 18, 2025, just 39 days after filing, via a voluntary dismissal without prejudice filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, the plaintiff’s counsel noted that no defendant had entered an appearance in the matter at the time of dismissal. The without-prejudice designation means Kotyk retains the legal right to refile claims against the same or similar defendants. Each party was designated to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
The 39-day lifespan is notably brief even by Schedule A case standards, suggesting the action may have achieved its intended purpose — such as securing takedowns, prompting off-platform settlements, or identifying the correct defendant entities — before formal litigation progressed. The public record does not disclose whether any off-record resolution was reached, and no defendant filing activity is recorded. The without-prejudice dismissal preserves optionality for the plaintiff while providing no public merits ruling on US7527314B2.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 39 days
39 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Dismissed without prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no defendant appeared here, Kotyk could file the notice unilaterally. The dismissal is self-executing upon filing — no judicial approval required. This is one of the most procedurally clean exits available in federal litigation.
No court order requiredPlaintiff can refile — but the clock and strategy reset
A without-prejudice dismissal leaves the underlying claims legally intact. Kotyk retains the right to bring a new action asserting US7527314B2 against the same or different defendants, subject to the applicable statute of limitations. However, a second voluntary dismissal against the same defendant would operate as an adjudication on the merits under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ of Rule 41(a)(1)(B), potentially foreclosing future claims.
Refiling right preservedNo appearance, no liability finding — but exposure remains
None of the Schedule A defendants formally appeared, and the dismissal yields no adjudication of infringement or invalidity. The defendants received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement. This means the patent’s enforceability is unresolved and the same sellers could face a renewed action. Defendants who may have received takedown notices or platform warnings as part of the enforcement strategy have no court order to rely on for protection.
No merits adjudicatedSchedule A tactics signal ongoing enforcement posture for vehicle accessories
The Schedule A filing structure — naming anonymous marketplace sellers collectively — is widely used to pursue counterfeit and infringing goods on platforms like Amazon and Alibaba. A swift dismissal without prejudice in this context is consistent with a strategy of leveraging litigation to obtain platform-level takedowns or prompt individual seller settlements, then exiting before incurring significant court costs. Sellers in the automotive accessories space should treat this as a signal of active IP enforcement around vehicle gap guard products.
E-commerce enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Jonathan Kotyk | Individual | Individual patent holder — asserting US7527314B2 covering vehicle gap guard technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous Schedule A e-commerce sellers alleged to infringe vehicle gap guard patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Jonathan KotykSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Jonathan KotykSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert W. Gettleman | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming this is a plaintiff-initiated unilateral exit rather than a stipulated or court-ordered dismissal. The explicit notation that ‘defendants have not made an appearance’ is legally significant — it confirms the procedural right to dismiss without consent and without prejudice. The cost-bearing clause (each party its own costs) is standard for this mechanism but forecloses any fee recovery by the plaintiff. No infringement finding, no invalidity ruling, and no injunctive relief issued.
US7527314B2 — Vehicle Gap Guard Automotive Accessory Patent
US7527314B2, filed under application number US11/557018, covers a vehicle gap guard — an automotive accessory designed to fill the gap between a vehicle seat and centre console or adjacent interior surfaces. The patent was granted by the USPTO and covers the structural design or functional configuration of the gap-filling product. Such patents typically protect specific geometric profiles, material combinations, or attachment mechanisms that distinguish the product from prior art gap fillers.
In the context of e-commerce enforcement, utility or design patents on consumer automotive accessories like gap guards are commercially valuable because the product category is heavily replicated by low-cost overseas manufacturers selling through Amazon, eBay, and similar platforms. A granted U.S. patent enables the holder to pursue DMCA-style and platform IP complaint mechanisms in addition to federal litigation. The enforceability of US7527314B2 was not adjudicated in this proceeding, meaning it remains a live risk factor for competitors and importers in the vehicle interior accessories market.
Should your product team run an FTO against US7527314B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling vehicle gap guards or functionally similar automotive interior gap-filling accessories in the U.S. market should assess exposure to US7527314B2. The patent remains in force with no invalidity ruling on record. Given the plaintiff’s demonstrated willingness to file Schedule A actions and the without-prejudice dismissal preserving refiling rights, the enforcement risk is not extinguished. R&D teams designing competing products and procurement teams sourcing from overseas suppliers should both treat this patent as a live clearance item.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product teams to map US7527314B2’s claim scope against your specific product geometry and features, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument if challenged, and surface the full landscape of related automotive accessory patents that may present adjacent risks. Eureka can also monitor for continuation applications or related filings by the same inventor or assignee that could extend the claim perimeter beyond the issued patent.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7527314B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent cases in N.D. Illinois: automotive accessories
Cases involving Schedule A defendants in the Northern District of Illinois asserting automotive accessory patents follow recognisable enforcement patterns worth benchmarking against this action.
What this case signals for automotive accessory IP enforcement
This case illustrates the rapid, pressure-driven litigation cycle increasingly common in Schedule A patent actions targeting online marketplaces.
Schedule A cases often resolve off-record — track the patent, not just the docket
The 39-day lifecycle with no defendant appearance strongly suggests the litigation goal was achieved outside the formal court process — through platform takedowns, cease-and-desist compliance, or private settlements. Monitoring US7527314B2 for new filings is more informative than watching this docket alone.
Without-prejudice exit preserves a live enforcement threat for vehicle gap guard sellers
No merits ruling was issued. US7527314B2 remains enforceable. Any seller of vehicle gap guard products operating on U.S. e-commerce platforms faces residual risk of a refiled action. An FTO analysis against this patent is warranted for any competitor in the automotive interior accessory segment.
Kotyk v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on November 18, 2025, 39 days after filing. Plaintiff Jonathan Kotyk filed a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No defendant had appeared. Each party bears its own costs. No infringement or invalidity ruling was issued regarding US7527314B2.
A without-prejudice dismissal means the patent infringement claims were not adjudicated on the merits. US7527314B2 remains enforceable. Kotyk retains the right to refile claims against the same or different defendants. Sellers of vehicle gap guard products on U.S. e-commerce platforms remain exposed to a future action.
Schedule A lawsuits are a common enforcement strategy against anonymous e-commerce sellers operating under aliases on platforms like Amazon. The plaintiff files against ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations’ identified in a sealed or attached Schedule A list, then seeks expedited discovery or platform takedowns to identify sellers. Defendants are often unmasked mid-litigation or resolve disputes privately before appearing.
The asserted patent is US7527314B2, filed under application number US11/557018. It covers a vehicle gap guard — an automotive accessory designed to fill gaps in vehicle interiors. The patent was granted by the USPTO. Its full claim scope and validity were not tested in this proceeding.
Yes. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile. However, under the two-dismissal rule in Rule 41(a)(1)(B), if Kotyk files a second action against the same defendant and voluntarily dismisses again, that second dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits, which would bar further claims against that specific defendant.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.