3:26-cv-01146
Tarpstop LLC v. Damsi
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tarpstop, LLC (Ohio); Joseph Callahan (Ohio)
- Defendant: Everest Damsi (Ohio); Luljeta Damsi (Ohio)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:26-cv-01146, N.D. Ohio, 05/15/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Ohio because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district, and the Defendants resided and were employed there during the relevant periods.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek to correct the inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 8,439,424 to add Joseph Callahan as a co-inventor or, alternatively, to obtain a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid for improperly naming Luljeta Damsi as an inventor.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the invention of a corner bracket assembly for retractable tarp systems used on flatbed trucks, a key component for ensuring durability and proper function.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the inventorship issue came to light during separate, ongoing litigation between Tarpstop and Everest Damsi concerning alleged breaches of non-compete and non-disclosure agreements. It also asserts that because the patent application was filed before March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) governs the invalidity claim for misjoinder.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-09-01 | Callahan allegedly redesigns extruded bow structure for new tarp system. |
| 2010-01-01 | Callahan allegedly develops "Rev. A" flange component. |
| 2010-01-25 | Tarpstop receives first production units of Rev. A flanges. |
| 2010-02-01 | Callahan allegedly engineers improved "Rev. B" flange design. |
| 2010-02-22 | Tarpstop completes first commercial installation using Rev. A flanges. |
| 2010-02-23 | Tarpstop receives first prototype Rev. B flanges. |
| 2010-02-27 | Tarpstop completes first installation using a Rev. B flange. |
| 2010-10-01 | Tarpstop begins purchasing cast versions of Rev. B flanges. |
| 2011-03-01 | Defendant Everest Damsi is introduced to Tarpstop. |
| 2011-04-01 | Plaintiff Joseph Callahan resigns from Tarpstop. |
| 2011-07-01 | Tarpstop engages Everest Damsi as a contractor. |
| 2012-02-16 | Application for '424 Patent filed, naming Everest and Luljeta Damsi as inventors. |
| 2013-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. 8,439,424 issues. |
| 2013-05-01 | Callahan rejoins Tarpstop. |
| 2020-05-16 | Callahan allegedly first learns he may be entitled to be named an inventor. |
| 2026-05-15 | Complaint for correction of inventorship filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,439,424 - Bracket Assembly for Modular Bows in a Tarp System and Methods of Assembling the Same
Issued May 14, 2013 ('424 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes issues with prior art tarp systems for trucks, noting that existing corner assemblies for modular bows can be difficult to assemble, relatively heavy, and may not adequately secure the support poles that hold the tarp, potentially leading to damage or reduced durability '424 Patent, col. 2:8-14 '424 Patent, col. 2:45-54
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-piece corner bracket assembly. As described in the specification, a key configuration involves a "curved base member" that attaches to the main frame of the tarp system's bows. A separate "tarp guide" is then supported by this base member '424 Patent, abstract This tarp guide features "adjacent dual channels" which create separate, continuous paths for the edges of two adjacent tarp panels to slide through the corner, ensuring smooth operation and secure alignment '424 Patent, col. 4:24-38 '424 Patent, fig. 3 An alternative embodiment claims a pair of "flanges" that connect together to both engage the curved base member and support the tarp guide '424 Patent, col. 7:45-54
- Technical Importance: This modular approach of separating the main structural component (the base member) from the guiding component (the tarp guide) allows for improved alignment, easier assembly, and potentially more durable performance in the harsh environment of road transport.
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint focuses on independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 2 and 7 Compl. ¶69 Compl. ¶76
Independent Claim 1:
- a curved base member adapted to be secured to a frame member;
- a tarp guide that is supported on the curved base member;
- the tarp guide having adjacent dual channels separated by a partition; and
- the channels of the tarp guide are adapted to be aligned with the channels of the frame member.
Independent Claim 11:
- a pair of flanges that are connected together and engage a curved base member;
- a tarp guide that is supported on the flanges;
- the tarp guide having adjacent dual channels separated by a partition; and
- the channels of the tarp guide are adapted to be aligned with the channels of the frame member.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but focuses its allegations on these specific claims as corresponding to Callahan's alleged contributions Compl. ¶69 Compl. ¶76
III. The Disputed Invention
Product Identification
The complaint does not accuse a product of infringement. Instead, it identifies the designs allegedly conceived by Plaintiff Joseph Callahan-referred to as "Rev. A" and "Rev. B"-as the basis for the inventive concepts claimed in the '424 Patent Compl. ¶¶14-20
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that in late 2009 and early 2010, Callahan led an engineering effort at Tarpstop to redesign a corner bracket for a new panelized rolling tarp system Compl. ¶¶10-11 The "Rev. A" design, allegedly developed by Callahan in January 2010, consisted of a flange that could be paired with another to encompass an existing corner bracket Compl. ¶14 A technical drawing of this component is provided in the complaint as Exhibit B Compl. ¶14 Together, the paired flanges would form a "tarp guide with adjacent dual channels" Compl. ¶14 An image included as Exhibit C shows the Rev. A flanges forming a tarp guide on the outside of an existing corner bracket assembly Compl. ¶15
- After identifying leakage issues with the Rev. A design, Callahan allegedly engineered an improved "Rev. B" design in February 2010 Compl. ¶17 The complaint alleges these designs were produced, tested, and commercially deployed by Tarpstop well before Defendant Everest Damsi's involvement with the company began in 2011 Compl. ¶¶16-22 The core allegation is that these pre-existing, Tarpstop-funded designs form the complete conception of the invention later patented by Damsi Compl. ¶70
IV. Analysis of Inventorship Allegations
The complaint alleges that Callahan conceived the subject matter of the '424 Patent claims, which was then improperly patented by the defendants. The following table summarizes the mapping between the patent claims and Callahan's alleged prior work.
'424 Patent Inventorship Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Prior Conception by Callahan (Rev. A Design) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a pair of flanges that are connected together and engage a curved base member... | The Rev. A design discloses a flange that, when paired with another, encompasses the existing curved base member of the corner bracket. The flanges are retained by a connecting member. | ¶14; ¶39 | col. 7:47-50 |
| a tarp guide that is supported on the flanges, | The Rev. A design's paired flanges form the tarp guide, which is thereby supported by the flanges themselves. | ¶14; ¶39 | col. 7:51-52 |
| the tarp guide having adjacent dual channels that are separated by a partition, | When paired, the flanges form a tarp guide with "adjacent dual channels." | ¶14; ¶39 | col. 7:52-54 |
| wherein the adjacent dual channels of the tarp guide are adapted to be aligned with the adjacent dual channels of the frame member... | The purpose of Callahan's redesign effort was to create a component to "accommodate the desired retractable tarp system," implying alignment with the system's other components. | ¶10; ¶14 | col. 7:55-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Conception vs. Reduction to Practice: The central question is whether Callahan's Rev. A and Rev. B designs constituted a complete "conception" of the invention, leaving Damsi merely to "reduce it to practice" using Tarpstop resources. The complaint alleges Damsi was given access to Callahan's designs and Tarpstop's proprietary information Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶28 The court will have to distinguish between the mental act of invention (conception) and the subsequent work of building and refining a physical embodiment.
- Scope of Contribution: The dispute will likely focus on whether Callahan's contribution meets the standard for joint inventorship for each asserted claim. Defendants may argue that Damsi made his own inventive contributions that were not derived from Callahan's work, thus making him a proper inventor.
- Factual Contribution of Luljeta Damsi: A key factual question is what, if any, inventive contribution was made by Luljeta Damsi. The complaint alleges she made none Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶83 and that her claims to inventing the "curve in the bracket" are invalid because that element was part of a pre-existing Tarpstop system Compl. ¶¶57-59
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "supported on"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the relationship between the core components. Claim 1 recites a tarp guide "supported on the curved base member," while Claim 11 recites a tarp guide "supported on the flanges." The complaint alleges that in Callahan's design, the flanges form the guide and also engage the base member, thus arguably embodying both configurations Compl. ¶39 The way this term is construed will determine how Callahan's earlier work maps onto the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification shows the tarp guide as a distinct component resting on the outer surface of the base member, suggesting "supported on" could mean simple physical contact and positioning (e.g., '424 Patent, fig. 3; '424 Patent, col. 4:51-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of Claim 11, where the guide is "supported on the flanges," which in turn "engage a curved base member," could imply a more complex, indirect support relationship that distinguishes it from the direct support in Claim 1 '424 Patent, col. 7:47-52
Term: "separate members"
- Context and Importance: Dependent Claim 7 requires the "curved base member and the flanges" to be "separate members." The complaint explicitly alleges that Callahan's Rev. A design disclosed this, as the flanges were constructed as separate components that attach to the existing base member Compl. ¶¶42-43 Proving conception of this limitation is crucial for Plaintiffs' claim to inventorship of Claim 7.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning suggests that as long as the base member and flanges are not monolithically formed as a single piece, they are "separate," even if they are tightly integrated in the final assembly.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's second embodiment describes an integrated component where a flange is "integrally formed with a curved base member," creating a "unique compact single component" '424 Patent, col. 7:28-32 This explicit contrast may be used to argue that "separate members" in Claim 7 requires the components to be fully distinct and independent pieces prior to assembly, as shown in the first embodiment '424 Patent, fig. 6
VI. Other Allegations
Count I: Correction of Inventorship (35 U.S.C. § 256)
The primary relief sought is a court order adding Joseph Callahan as a co-inventor of the '424 Patent Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶78 The complaint alleges that Callahan contributed to the conception of at least claims 1, 2, 7, and 11 and was erroneously omitted from the patent application Compl. ¶76
Count II: Invalidity for Misjoinder (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f))
As an alternative, if the court does not correct inventorship, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the '424 Patent is invalid Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶85 This claim is based on the alleged misjoinder of Luljeta Damsi, who is claimed to have made "no inventive contribution to the conception of any claim" Compl. ¶83 The complaint asserts that because the patent application was filed in February 2012, it is governed by pre-AIA law, which held that a patent was invalid if an applicant "did not himself invent the subject matter" Compl. ¶¶80-81
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of conception versus reduction to practice: Does the documentary evidence of Callahan's "Rev. A" and "Rev. B" designs from 2010 constitute a complete conception of the invention claimed in the '424 patent, or did Everest Damsi add his own significant inventive steps beyond merely refining and implementing Callahan's initial concepts?
A second central question is one of inventive contribution: What evidence exists to corroborate Luljeta Damsi's contribution to the conception of any claim, and can her claim to inventing the "curve in the bracket" survive allegations that this was a pre-existing, non-novel element of Tarpstop's prior art systems?
Finally, the case will present a question of documentary corroboration: In a dispute centered on events that occurred over a decade ago, the court's decision will likely depend on the strength and clarity of the contemporaneous technical drawings, invoices, and communications that Plaintiffs have marshaled to corroborate Callahan's claim of prior conception against the testimony of the named inventors.