A Pennsylvania class action lawsuit alleges that InventHelp’s patent searches and basic information package reports were purposefully incomplete in order to convince consumers that their inventions were marketable and/or patentable and dupe aspiring inventors into purchasing services InventHelp didn’t provide and never intended to provide.
Plaintiffs Geta Miclaus and Vim and Kevin Byrne claim that InventHelp made false representations that their proposals were eligible for patents and misled them into purchasing services agreements costing between $13,500 and $30,000.
According to the lawsuit, InventHelp blocks negative reviews online, preventing consumers from seeing what really happens to those who sign up for their services.
InventHelp represents to prospective and existing clients that its “DataBank” of companies has agreed to review new ideas in confidence and includes such well-known brands and big-box stores as Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond, Lysol, Cabela’s, and Heinz. But the lawsuit alleges that many of these “DataBank” companies have no relationship whatsoever with InventHelp and have not signed non-disclosure agreements, while many other “DataBank” companies do not exist or are sham companies.
The lawsuit also claims that InventHelp fraudulently inflates the number of its customers who received licensing agreements. Existing clients are told that a company wants a “60-day license agreement” to review their product, but inevitably later decides against “renewing” this sham “60-day license.”
According to the lawsuit, InventHelp’s business model is based upon receipt of Submission Service fees, and nothing more. The class-action lawsuit is demanding actual damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, and for Defendants to correct their practices.
Miclaus et al
v. Invention Submission Corporation dba InventHelp
Quoted from the class action lawsuit complaint:
Entire Enterprise is Fraudulent, from Start to Finish
“This class action arises out of a deceptive and fraudulent invention promotion scam that has bilked thousands of aspiring inventors into paying millions of dollars to [InventHelp et al].”
“[InventHelp et al]’s entire business model and enterprise is fraudulent, from start to finish. After being lured in by [InventHelp et al]’s slick advertising and sales tactics, Class Plaintiffs are induced to sign expensive Submission Agreement contracts based upon [InventHelp et al]’s purposefully incomplete patent searches and basic information package reports.”
“[InventHelp et al]’s multi-tiered conspiracy preys upon consumers’ high hopes and dreams. It is cleverly constructed to avoid liability and monetary judgment by employing an intricate web of entities – invention promotion companies, licensing agents, private money lenders, patent attorneys and agents, licensing and distribution companies – that act in concert to defraud Class Plaintiffs.”
InventHelp Uses Nefarious Means to Block Negative Reviews
“[InventHelp et al] also use nefarious means to censor, block and/or mask negative reviews of InventHelp, thereby preventing consumers from seeing what really happens to those who sign up for their services. In order to obstruct consumers’ view of the hundreds of negative reviews of InventHelp on the consumer-targeted internet websites www.pissedconsumer.com, and www.ripoffreport.com, [InventHelp et al] employ sophisticated mechanisms (including purchasing domain names) to redirect those consumers to InventHelp’s own website, or otherwise redirect consumers without consumers’ knowledge and/or consent, to false and fraudulent glowing reviews.”
Report and Patentability Opinion First Step in Scheme to Trick Inventors into Signing Expensive Submission Services Agreements
“Customers who sign up for the first, less expensive step of InventHelp’s services receive a hard-bound InventHelp “Report” and a “Preliminary Patentability Opinion” purportedly authored by Patent Attorney Defendant Thomas Frost. Both documents are purposefully obtuse, contain omissions and misrepresentations, and serve as InventHelp’s crucial first step in its scheme to trick inventors into second meetings in which they are upsold into signing exorbitantly expensive Submission Services Agreements, which cost approximately $13,500 – $30,000 a pop.”
“[InventHelp et al]’s representatives employ high pressure tactics to push Class Plaintiffs to hand over tens of thousands of dollars and sign fraudulent contracts, falsely representing that if Class Plaintiffs sign immediately (without time to properly review the contracts) they will receive substantial discounts pursuant to “specials” that are about to expire, that Class Plaintiffs’ proposed inventions are one-of-a-kind and/or carry terrific potential for profit, and that Class Plaintiffs likely stand to make ‘millions’ or ‘billions’ if they engage [InventHelp et al]’s services.”
Offered Loans by “Independent Private Money Lender” Operating Under the Identical Ownership as InventHelp
“Because Class Plaintiffs often do not have at hand the tens of thousands of dollars ‘necessary’ to make their dreams come true, they are offered generous loans by “independent private money lender” Universal Payment Corporation. This “independent private money lender” is not independent at all – it operates under the identical ownership and control as InventHelp, and is an indispensable arm of the fraudulent scheme.”
“[InventHelp et al] also employ deceptive and fraudulent tactics by using threats, intimidation and harassment to collect debts. In order to induce Class Plaintiffs to sign contracts, [InventHelp et al] represent that if Class Plaintiffs can no longer make payments, then there is “no risk” – the contracts will simply expire with no further performance on either end. However, if and when Class Plaintiffs stop paying, [InventHelp et al] dog Class Plaintiffs, threaten to “destroy” Plaintiffs’ credit, and threaten to put liens on their homes and other personal property.”
Attorneys Conducted Incomplete Patent Searches, Then Signed Boilerplate Patentability Opinions
“[InventHelp et al]’s “Preliminary Patentability Opinions,” opine that customers’ proposed inventions are eligible to receive design or utility patents, when, in fact, there often already exist “dead ringer” patents that preclude patents for these inventions.”
“The Attorney Defendants conducted incomplete patent searches, advised Class Plaintiffs to apply for patents even though Attorney Defendants were aware that Class Plaintiffs’ ideas were not suitable for patents for various reasons. Attorney Frost rarely spoke or met with consumers to discuss their proposed inventions, instead signing boilerplate ‘Patentability Opinions.’”
Whistleblower Patent Attorney Filed Lawsuit Claiming InventHelp Pressured Her to Cover Up Fraud
“InventHelp refers its clients to several patent attorney firms located throughout the United States, including the now-defunct firm Crossley & Stevenson. These patent attorneys apply for utility or design patents on InventHelp customers’ behalf. One such attorney, Tarley G. Stevenson, learned that InventHelp and her law partner, Patricia K. Crossley, were engaging in fraud.”
“As a result, attorney Tarley G. Stevenson sought to file a lawsuit and dissolve her partnership with Patricia Crossley and InventHelp. Upon learning this, Defendant Robert J. Susa personally called Ms. Stevenson and repeatedly threatened and harassed her, pressuring her to cover up the fraud. Mr. Susa also repeatedly threatened Ms. Stevenson that if she used InventHelp’s name in any lawsuit or filing he would sue her for defamation.
Ms. Stevenson wrote a letter to Mr. Susa memorializing her understanding of InventHelp’s fraud vis-à-vis the patent attorneys with whom InventHelp works. Among other things, she complained about the patent attorneys’ lack of independence. She also opined that the Thomas Frost Preliminary Patentability Opinions and searches “are an absolute sham.” Mr. Susa personally responded with threats to Ms. Stevenson and her law practice.”
In response to the pending class action lawsuit against InventHelp, Tarley Stevenson sent Plaintiff attorney Julie Plitt an email “characterizing InventHelp as a “deceitful, despicable company” and stating that “Bob Susa and his attorney at Fox Rothschild not only meddled in the lawsuit, but asked me to cover up the close to $1M in fraud that my partner was responsible for.”
(See Page 35 & Exhibit E)
Many Companies in InventHelp’s ‘DataBank’ are Sham Companies
“InventHelp sends customers lists of companies allegedly in its ‘DataBank’ that have purportedly agreed to “review new ideas in confidence.” In truth and in fact, many of the companies on these lists do not even exist and/or are sham companies. Others have not agreed to “review new ideas in confidence,” have not signed non-disclosure agreements, and have no relationship whatsoever with InventHelp.
InventHelp represents to prospective and existing clients that it has relationships with certain well-known entities, brands and big-box stores, including K-Mart, Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond, Lysol, Air Wick, Cabela’s, Elmer’s, Heinz, and Carnegie Mellon University, and that these entities are registered in InventHelp’s “DataBank.” These representations are false, misleading and contain outright lies.”
InventHelp’s Non-Confidential Mailings Risks Patentability, Theft, and Saleability of Inventions
“To the extent InventHelp does send out mass mailings of flyers describing consumers’ inventions, many recipients of the flyers have not signed Non-Disclosure Agreements, have no relationship whatsoever with InventHelp, and/or do not even exist.”
“[InventHelp et al]’s regular practice thus puts Plaintiffs’ ideas in the public realm thereby impacting potential patentability. [InventHelp et al]’s regular practice also risks theft of Plaintiffs’ unpatented ideas [and] also decreases and/or eliminates the salability of Plaintiffs’ inventions because these ideas become public.”
Sham “60-day License Agreements” Concocted to Falsify Disclosure Numbers
“Sometimes, InventHelp reaches out to existing clients, representing that outside companies have discovered their inventions, and that those companies now want to license the products pursuant to “60-day license agreements.” InventHelp customers sign the paperwork and excitedly wait for their dreams to come true. Inevitably, the sham licensing companies decide against “renewing” the fake 60-day licenses.
In truth and in fact, these purported “60-day licenses” are concocted solely for the purpose of bolstering InventHelp’s AIPA disclosures – InventHelp includes the sham “60-day licenses” in their AIPA numbers, thereby falsely representing to existing and potential clients the number of InventHelp customers who received licensing agreements.”
InventHelp Makes Off with Money and Does Little to Nothing to Fulfill Their End of the Bargain
“[InventHelp et al] make off with Class Plaintiffs’ money and do little to nothing to fulfill their end of the bargain, stringing Class Plaintiffs along with false promises and boilerplate “analyses” in order to extract more money, and then disappearing and dodging calls as soon as [InventHelp et al] have the money in hand.”
“Once consumers sign the expensive agreements, they receive a flurry of paperwork for years on end, giving them the continuing impression that [InventHelp et al] are working on their behalf. In truth and in fact, [InventHelp et al] are generating this paperwork in order to create this impression, with no expectation that the proposed inventions will be licensed. Indeed, on the rare occasion that a legitimate company expresses interest in an InventHelp client’s idea, that company has no means of contacting InventHelp other than the 1-800 number advertised on InventHelp’s late-night television commercials. These calls go unreturned.”
Threat of Continued Criminal and Fraudulent Activity as Commercials Continue to Lure Potential Inventors
“In sum, all “efforts” made on Plaintiffs’ behalf by [InventHelp et al] are lies and scams. [InventHelp et al], contrary to their written and verbal representations, have no meaningful interest or investment in fulfilling their contractual promises; rather, their business model is based upon receipt of Submission Service fees, and nothing more.”
“Moreover, the scheme described herein is a continuing operation and poses the threat of continued criminal and fraudulent activity, preying upon unsuspecting victims. [InventHelp et al]’s websites and television commercials continue to tout their invention promotion services to lure potential inventors to enter into contracts with [InventHelp et al] for fraudulent invention promotion services.”
Plaintiff Geta Miclaus’s Story:
Inflatable Tourniquet Idea
According to the class action complaint, Plaintiff Geta Miclaus, a Registered Nurse in California, had an idea for a potential invention: an inflatable tourniquet controlled by a foot pedal that would enable medical professionals to more safely and easily insert “Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters” (otherwise known as “PICC Lines”) into patients’ arms.
InventHelp Pays to Erase Bad Reviews Online
After seeing several InventHelp TV commercials, Geta researched the company and found many glowing reviews. She then contacted InventHelp through its website.
InventHelp pays sophisticated “reputation management professionals” to erase bad reviews online, falsely representing to website administrators that certain bad reviews have been ruled defamatory by court orders, when, in fact, the purported court orders relating to those reviews are nonexistent.”
Told That Her Idea Carried Immense Potential for Profit at First Meeting
Geta Miclaus received an email from InventHelp, containing video advertisements touting their services and their “DataBank” of more than 8,000 companies, followed by the names and logos of reputable and well-known companies, such as Cabela’s, Heinz, Elmer’s, Kraft, Clorox, Tupperware, Rubbermaid, Glad, Walmart, Autozone, Woolite, Clearasil, and many others. “The message conveyed by this advertisement is false, ambiguous and deceptive.”
In response to InventHelp’s email, Geta met with an InventHelp representative at their Irvine, California office, and was told “that her idea was extremely marketable and carried immense potential for profit.” She signed a Basic Information Package Agreement for $760 and Preliminary Patentability Search and Opinion Referral Request for $215.
InventHelp Disclosure Statement:
Zero out of 63,859 Customers Made More Money Than They Paid
During this initial meeting with InventHelp, Geta signed InventHelp disclosure documents. One stated: “From 2014-2016, we signed Submission Agreements with 7,039 clients. As a result of our services, 159 clients have received license agreements for their products, and 35 clients have received more money than they paid us for these services.”
Although she did not know it at the time, the numbers in the disclosure documents were “false and misleading by virtue of their inclusion of sham licensing agreements.”
The 2017 Western InventHelp disclosure she signed contained this statement: “The total number of customers who have contracted with the Company for invention development services prior to the last thirty (30) days is 63,859. The number of customers that have received by virtue of this invention developer’s performance, an amount of money in excess of the amount of money paid by the customer to this invention developer is 0.”
Patentability Opinions Sent to All InventHelp Customers are False and Misleading
The Preliminary Patentability Search and Opinion Referral Request provided a referral to a patent attorney who would separately engage with Ms. Miclaus to provide patent services. Per that agreement, InventHelp sent a one-page hand-written description of Geta’s proposed invention to Attorney Defendant Frost. Ms. Miclaus never discussed her invention with the attorney, never met with him in person, never talked with him on the phone, nor sent him any further supporting documents for the patent search.
Ms. Miclaus was led to believe by InventHelp that the Patentability Opinion was drafted by an objective and independent registered patent attorney. “Upon information and belief, Defendant Frost receives all or a substantial percentage of his business from [InventHelp et al] and is neither independent nor objective.”
The Patentability Opinion she received included a 6-page boilerplate letter, which merely described general considerations of patents applicable to any proposed invention. It did not contain a single sentence describing Ms. Miclaus’s invention.
Upsold into $14,500 Submission Services
Geta met with InventHelp a second time to review these results, unaware that the true purpose of the meeting was to “upsell” her to more costly Submission services. “Although purporting to be an end in itself, in truth and in fact the Basic Information Package and Preliminary Patentability Opinion are part of [InventHelp et al]’s ploy to convince consumers that their inventions are marketable and/or patentable, and con them into signing contracts for the more expensive Submission Services.”
Geta signed a $14,500 Submission Agreement with InventHelp, which stated: “Western InventHelp will prepare a New Product Submission Brochure, which shall include a description of the invention, benefits and features, a 3D graphic or other illustration in color, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and suggested distribution channels.”
InventHelp also agreed to include her invention in its Virtual Invention Browsing Experience (VIBE) at a trade show, as well as submit her invention to their Data Bank of companies: “InventHelp will submit Client’s invention, product or idea to Data Bank companies. … Companies registered in our Data Bank have agreed to review submission materials submitted to them by InventHelp in confidence and have signed confidentiality and non-use agreements.”
At the same meeting, she also signed an agreement with Intromark, which would be responsible for any sale or licensing contracts with any interested companies after InventHelp had submitted her invention idea. The Intromark Proposal stated: “Client further agrees that Intromark during the term of this Proposal shall have the exclusive right to negotiate, and to execute contracts on Client’s behalf for the sale or licensing of the idea, invention or product. … If a licensing agreement or outright sale results, Intromark shall receive twenty percent (20%) of all royalties paid or of the total sales price paid.”
DataBank Company Lists Sent to All InventHelp Customers Are Shams
After signing up for their Submission Services, Geta started receiving a series of letters from InventHelp, claiming that her invention was now part of their Virtual Trade Show and that her invention had been submitted to specific Data Bank companies.
Examples of Data Bank companies to which InventHelp claimed they sent Geta’s invention:
- “Tamsco Instruments” – it received no information about Geta’s invention from InventHelp, and in fact has no relationship with InventHelp, receives no mail from InventHelp, and has never signed any nondisclosure agreement with InventHelp.
- “Haven Innovation” – also receives no mail or proposals from InventHelp, and does not have any confidentiality agreement with InventHelp.
- “Rinz-L-O Pillow Co.” – listed by InventHelp as a Missouri company, but in fact appears to be based in the Philippines with no U.S. contact person.
- “Welland Medical” – listed as a Vermont-based Data Bank company, but has been defunct for years.
No Infrastructure to Deal with Companies Actually Interested in Inventions
Some of the companies listed in InventHelp’s Data Bank have in fact agreed to review invention ideas, but in the rare instances that these companies express interest in an invention, InventHelp does not return the calls.
Spent Over $15,000 for InventHelp’s Worthless, False, and Fraudulent Services
Plaintiffs Kevin and Vim Byrne’s Story:
“Bonding Double Doll Collection” Idea
According to the class action complaint, Plaintiffs Kevin and Vim Byrne, a grocery store manager and a stay-at-home mother, believed that they had a new invention idea: a two-sided doll customized to represent family members, such as a mother and daughter. They called their idea the “Bonding Double Doll Collection.”
Told Idea had Enormous Potential for Profit at Initial InventHelp Meeting
Lured in by InventHelp’s television commercials, Mr. and Mrs. Byrne met with an InventHelp representative who expressed extreme excitement over their idea and told them it had enormous potential for profit.
They signed the Basic Information Package Agreement with Western InventHelp for $760, financed by “private money lender” Universal Payment Corporation.
InventHelp Includes Sham “60-day License Agreements” in Disclosure Numbers
At this initial meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Byrne were provided InventHelp disclosures which stated: “The total number of customers who have contracted with InventHelp in the past 5 years is 10,323. The total number of customers to have received a net financial profit as a direct result of invention promotion services provided by InventHelp is unknown. However, the total number of clients known to have received more money than they paid InventHelp for submission services as a direct result of these services is 45. The total number of customers known by InventHelp to have received license agreements for their inventions as a direct result of InventHelp services is 236.”
$11,900 Submission Services Financed with InventHelp’s “Private Money Lender”
A couple months later, Mr. and Mrs. Byrne received a call offering them a “rare special” on InventHelp’s Submission Services which would save them thousands of dollars, but the deal was only available for two more days. They rushed to make an appointment in order to take advantage of the purported special.
At the second meeting with InventHelp, they were told that the results of the Basic Information Package were very promising, and then pressured to sign a $11,900 “Submission Agreement” with Western InventHelp. When they expressed concerns about the high cost of these services, they were encouraged to use their existing contract with “private money lender” Universal Payment Corporation.
InventHelp Disclosure Statement:
Zero out of 63,859 Customers Made More Money Than They Paid
As part of the Submission Agreement, Mr. and Mrs. Byrne were provided disclosures from Western InventHelp which stated: “The total number of customers who have contracted with Company prior to the last 30 days is 63,859. The number of customers that have received, by virtue of this invention developer’s performance, an amount of money in excess of the amount of money paid by the customer to this invention promoter is 0.”
InventHelp Routinely Uses Sham “60-Day License Agreements” to Falsify the Number of Clients who Received License Agreements
Mrs. Byrne received an email from InventHelp claiming that a company wanted to pay them $500 for a “60-day license” to review their product. When she spoke to InventHelp’s representative on the phone, she was told that this type of short-term license agreement was standard industry practice.
Mr. and Mrs. Byrne were overjoyed that a company was interested in licensing their invention, and they soon received a $500 check in the mail from Intromark, Inc. They were never provided with a fully executed License Agreement with “Scaddoodle, Inc,” nor given the name of any person representing that purported Massachusetts corporation. Later, they were informed that “Scaddoodle, Inc” decided not to renew the 60-day license, but the $500 was theirs to keep.
Many DataBank Companies Do Not Exist or Do Not Have Any Relationship with InventHelp
Mr. and Mrs. Byrne regularly received letters on InventHelp letterhead claiming that InventHelp had sent their idea to DataBank Companies, which had signed confidentiality agreements. However, many of these DataBank companies do not exist, did not sign nondisclosure agreements, and/or do not have any relationship with InventHelp.
Examples of DataBank companies to which InventHelp claimed they sent the Byrnes’ invention:
- “Ozark Mountain Kids” – per the owner of the company, it has no relationship with InventHelp, never had any relationship with InventHelp, never signed any nondisclosure agreement with InventHelp and never received any information about the Byrnes’ invention from InventHelp.
- “RB Toy Design, Inc.” – per the principal of the company, he never agreed to be a part of InventHelp’s DataBank, never received information about the Byrnes’ invention, and that instead he just “ended up on a list.”
- Gann Memorials LLC – per the principal of the company, it has no relationship with InventHelp and has never signed any nondisclosure agreement with InventHelp, and in fact has repeatedly told InventHelp to take it off of its list, but continues to receive “junk mail” from InventHelp.
- “Moose Mountain” – does not exist as an independent entity and its parent company, JAKKS Pacific, Inc., does not accept concept submissions as a matter of company policy.
- Toysmith Group – does not accept product submissions as a matter of company policy.
Paid InventHelp over $12,000 for Worthless, False and Fraudulent Services
The Byrnes financed their InventHelp contracts through Universal Payment Corporation. When they could no longer afford to make the monthly payments, InventHelp first repeatedly harassed the Byrnes and then reported them to a credit agency, thereby lowering their credit rating. Ultimately they paid off the Universal Payment Corporation contract so that they could restore their credit and get on with their lives. The Byrnes paid InventHelp over $12,000 for “worthless, false and fraudulent services.”
More info on class action lawsuits against InventHelp at:
New York Class Action Lawsuit: Zanotti v. InventHelp
Pennsylvania Class Action Lawsuit: Calhoun v. InventHelp
Pennsylvania Class Action Lawsuit: Austin v. InventHelp
Truth in Advertising
How to Protect Yourself from Invention Promotion Scams
Be Involved in the Process
As a new inventor or busy small business owner, the process of patenting and commercializing your invention can feel overwhelming, which makes the idea of paying someone else to handle everything for you very appealing.
Ultimately, this is your idea, and you cannot delegate your responsibility to make it succeed – you must become an Entrepreneur to bring your invention to market.
As a new Entrepreneur, you will need expert advice to help you – you must assemble a team of professionals. Using your vision, you lead the team, and the experts on your team give you the information you need to decisively take action steps, bringing your idea From Your Mind to the Marketplace®.
Beware Promises of Profits
No one can guarantee that you will make money from your invention. But you can improve your chances for success by being involved, getting professional advice and information along the way, and persisting in the face of obstacles until success is achieved.
Beware Patent Searches that Find Nothing
Even if your invention is unique and patentable, a good Patent Search should still find the prior art that is most similar to your invention. This is necessary for writing the patent application, so we can claim your invention as broadly as possible, while not stepping on the toes of any related prior art.
Call for a Free Consultation to Guide your Next Action Steps
Call for your Free Phone Consultation with Patent Attorney Russ Weinzimmer: (800) 621-3654.
More articles from Strategic Patent Law can be found at our Articles page.
