Invention promotion firm

Last updated

An invention promotion firm or invention submission corporation provides services to inventors to help them in develop or market their inventions. [1] These firms may offer to evaluate the patentability of inventions, file patent applications, build prototypes, license them to manufacturers, and otherwise market. They are distinguished from more conventional consulting firms and law firms offering the same or similar services in that they market their services primarily to amateur inventors through the mass media. [2]

Contents

The US government estimates that hundreds of companies offer invention-promotion services and that “virtually all of them are either ineffective or outright fraudulent. One official at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says he believes there are fewer than a half-dozen legitimate invention promoters in the country”. [3]

Performance

Prior to the 1999 American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA), accurate statistics of the success rate of invention promotion firms were difficult to come by. Nonetheless, as a result of certain legal actions taken against some of these firms, overall success rates have come to light. One such firm, Davison Associates, disclosed that of 900 ideas where a client had a prototype built of their invention at an average cost of $11,000, only 30 of those inventions were licensed within 6 months. Of the inventions licensed, only 10 made more in license fees than the cost of the invention promotion services. [4]

Between 2007 and 2009, the Pittsburgh-based promotional firm InventHelp signed agreements with 5,336 clients resulting in 86 licensing agreements. Only 27 clients (0.5%) received more money from licensing fees than they paid InventHelp for their services. [5]

Sources of revenue

Invention promotion firms generally make their money from fees charged to clients for services. These fees normally must be paid up front and a customer may be told that they may have very little time, such as three days or less, in order to make a decision. Invention promotion firms may also receive a portion of their fees as a share of the royalty that an inventor earns on his or her invention. The total fraction of an invention promotion firm's revenue obtained from royalties, however, may be less than 1%. [4]

After a massive fraud was being launched by a significant amount of invention promotion companies [6] the 1999 American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) established disclosure requirements for invention promotion firms. These disclosure requirements include:

The American Inventors Protection Act also provides civil penalties that can be assessed against invention promotion firms engaged in fraudulent or deceptive practices, defined by the FTC as "invention promotion scams". [7]

The USPTO and the FTC both provide guidelines for finding legitimate invention development, prototyping and promotion firms, that comply with the AIPA.

Invention Submission Corporation

In 1994, the FTC reached a settlement with Invention Submission Corporation, after a five-year investigation of claims that the company "misrepresented the nature, quality and success rate of the promotion services it sold to consumers." Under the terms of a consent decree, Invention Submission Corporation – now trading as InventHelp – set aside $1.2 million for customer refunds. [8] [9] [10]

Project Mousetrap

In 1997, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched "Project Mousetrap" to identify, prosecute and fine firms engaged in fraudulent or deceptive practices, in what was alleged as a massive fraud by a significant amount of invention promotion firms. [6]

In 1998 all of the accused parties except one settled with the FTC and a $250,000 redress fund was set up for inventors taken in by the firms. [3] In 2006, judgment was rendered against Davison & Associates. [11] They were fined $US 26 million to be used to compensate defrauded clients. [12] Davison appealed the judgment, and then settled with the FTC for $10.7 million in 2008. [13]

World Patent Marketing

In 2017, the company World Patent Marketing was shut down by the FTC.[ citation needed ] Members of the advisory board of the company included the 2018 acting United States Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, [14] Republican Congressman Brian Mast, and the scientist Ronald Mallett. [15]

Public posting of complaints against invention promotion firms

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) posts complaints online from dissatisfied clients of invention promotion firms and provides an opportunity for invention promotion firms to respond to the complaints. The USPTO, however, does not investigate the validity of any of the complaints or responses. [16]

Guidelines for identifying unscrupulous firms

Both the USPTO and the US Federal Trade Commission [17] [18] publish guidelines on how inventors can better determine if an invention promotion firm is scrupulous or not. Signs of an unscrupulous invention promotion firm include:

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent</span> Type of legal protection for an invention

A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention. In most countries, patent rights fall under private law and the patent holder must sue someone infringing the patent in order to enforce their rights.

A binary option is a financial exotic option in which the payoff is either some fixed monetary amount or nothing at all. The two main types of binary options are the cash-or-nothing binary option and the asset-or-nothing binary option. The former pays some fixed amount of cash if the option expires in-the-money while the latter pays the value of the underlying security. They are also called all-or-nothing options, digital options, and fixed return options (FROs).

Rambus Inc. is an American technology company that designs, develops and licenses chip interface technologies and architectures that are used in digital electronics products. The company, founded in 1990, is well known for inventing RDRAM and for its intellectual property-based litigation following the introduction of DDR-SDRAM memory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent model</span> Type of functional model used to illustrate features of a patent

A patent model was a handmade miniature model no larger than 12" by 12" by 12" that showed how an invention works. It was one of the most interesting early features of the United States patent system.

Mousetrapping is a technique that prevents users from exiting a website through standard means. It is frequently used by malicious websites, and is often seen on tech support scam sites.

The American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) is a United States federal law enacted on November 29, 1999, as Public Law 106-113. In 2002, the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002, Public Law 107-273, amended AIPA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent troll</span> Pejorative term related to intellectual property

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities, which do not practice their asserted patent, may not be considered "patent trolls", when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

In patent law, an inventor is the person, or persons in United States patent law, who contribute to the claims of a patentable invention. In some patent law frameworks, however, such as in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its case law, no explicit, accurate definition of who exactly is an inventor is provided. The definition may slightly vary from one European country to another. Inventorship is generally not considered to be a patentability criterion under European patent law.

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or their successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

<i>Inventions and Their Management</i> 1937 science book by Alf K. Berle and L. Sprague de Camp

Inventions and Their Management is a science book by Alf K. Berle and L. Sprague de Camp. It was based on A Course on Inventing and Patenting by Howard Wilcox and Alf K. Berle, a series of nine papers presented by New York University in cooperation with Inventors Foundation, Inc., issued from 1933-1934. The Berle/de Camp version was published by the International Textbook Company in July 1937. It was reprinted, revised, in September 1940. A second edition was issued by the same publisher in April 1947 and was reprinted, revised, in January 1948, with a third printing in June 1948 and a fourth in June 1950. A third edition was issued by the same publisher in November 1951 and was reprinted, revised, in 1954. An additional printing was issued by Laurel Publishing in 1957. The work was revised and reissued under the new title Inventions, Patents, and Their Management by Van Nostrand in 1959. It was reprinted by Litton Educational publishers in 1968. The work has been translated into Japanese.

In a reloading scam, a victim is repeatedly approached by con artists, often until "sucked dry". This form of fraud is perpetrated on those more susceptible to pressure after the first losses, perhaps because of hopes to recover money previously invested, perhaps because of inability to say "no" to a con man.

Telemarketing fraud is fraudulent selling conducted over the telephone. The term is also used for telephone fraud not involving selling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Work-at-home scheme</span> Scams focused on businesses run from ones home

A work-at-home scheme is a get-rich-quick scam in which a victim is lured by an offer to be employed at home, very often doing some simple task in a minimal amount of time with a large amount of income that far exceeds the market rate for the type of work. The true purpose of such an offer is for the perpetrator to extort money from the victim, either by charging a fee to join the scheme, or requiring the victim to invest in products whose resale value is misrepresented.

Scams in intellectual property include scams in which inventors and other rights holders are lured to pay money for an apparently official registration of their intellectual property, or for professional development and promotion of their ideas, but do not receive the expected services.

Davison Design & Development, formerly Davison & Associates is a product development company. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and was founded in 1989 by George Davison.

Cramming is a form of fraud in which small charges are added to a bill by a third party without the subscriber's consent, approval, authorization or disclosure. These may be disguised as a tax, some other common fee or a bogus service, and may be several dollars or even just a few cents. The crammer's intent is that the subscriber will overlook and ultimately pay these small charges without challenging their legitimacy or inquiring further.

IBM Master Inventor is an honorific title bestowed by the IBM Corporation to a qualifying employee. The qualification and appointment to Master Inventor is governed by the value to IBM of an inventor's contribution to the patent portfolio, and through defensive publication. IBM weighs many aspects of an inventor's contributions, including impact of invention through licensing, inclusion in product, and percentage of patents with a measurable impact. IBM also considers an individual's contribution to the inventing community inside IBM, whether by acting as a patent reviewer, or providing feedback and guidance to new inventors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leahy–Smith America Invents Act</span>

The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952 and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session.

World Patent Marketing (WPM), founded in 2014 by Scott G. Cooper was a fraudulent Miami-based corporation that presented itself as an invention-promotion firm but was later determined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to defraud investors seeking to market inventions. In March 2018, following an FTC investigation, World Patent Marketing was shut down and Cooper was banned from the patent industry and ordered to pay nearly $1 million in FTC fines.

References

  1. ↑ 35 USC 297(c) Definitions of invention promoter
  2. ↑ Contact the USPTO before you get burned! Advice from the USPTO concerning Invention promoters
  3. 1 2 Stout, Hilary "Redress Readies for Victims Of Invention-Promotion Scam", Wall Street Journal, 1 December 1998
  4. 1 2 FEDERAL TRADE COMM v. DAVISON & ASSOCIATES, et al., FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 3/17/06. pages 6 & 8
  5. ↑ Drummond, Mike (October 25, 2010). "Reinventing InventHelp". Inventors Digest. Retrieved June 15, 2019.
  6. 1 2 "FTC/STATE 'PROJECT MOUSETRAP' SNARES INVENTION PROMOTION INDUSTRY", US Federal Trade Commission, Press Release July 1997
  7. ↑ "Court halts bogus invention promotion firm claims" FTC press release 19 April 2006
  8. ↑ Sullivan, Bob (September 5, 2004). "Got an invention? You, too, can be scammed". NBC. Archived from the original on April 5, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2019.
  9. ↑ "Inside INPEX and InventHelp". Inventors Digest. October 15, 2009. Retrieved June 15, 2019.
  10. ↑ "Invention Marketing Companies". Brown & Michaels. January 1, 2007. Retrieved June 15, 2019.
  11. ↑ Order of Final Judgment, Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Davison & Assocs., No. CV 97-1278-GLL (W.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2006) (Lancaster, J.).
  12. ↑ Kim Leonard, "Firm to pay $26 Million", Tribune-Review, 26 March 2006
  13. ↑ Kim Leonard, "O'Hara invention promoter, FTC settle case for $10.7 million" - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 14 July 2008. Archived 26 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine
  14. ↑ Swaine, Jon. "Trump's acting attorney general involved in firm that scammed veterans out of life savings". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 November 2018.
  15. ↑ Shammas, Brittany (7 November 2018). "Trump's Acting Attorney General Was Part of Miami-Based Invention Scam Company". Miami New Times. Retrieved 7 November 2018.
  16. ↑ "The USPTO public forum for invention promoters/promotion firm complaints and responses". Archived from the original on 2009-09-08. Retrieved 2007-02-04.
  17. ↑ FTC Consumer Alert: Spotting Sweet-Sounding Promises of Fraudulent Invention Promotion Firms, FTC publication, October 2003.
  18. ↑ FTC Facts for Consumers: Invention Promotion Firms
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.