For decades, invention promotion companies have occupied an uneasy space between entrepreneurial aspiration and consumer protection. Among the most prominent is InventHelp, a Pittsburgh-based firm founded in 1984 that advertises nationwide and internationally, promising to help everyday inventors bring ideas to market. The company operates legally, yet its own disclosures, court records, regulatory actions, and customer complaints reveal a business model that has produced financial losses for nearly all of its clients.
According to InventHelp’s most recent mandatory disclosures covering 2022 through 2024, only five of 3,507 clients, about 0.14 percent, made more money than they paid the company. That means 99.86 percent did not. Typical InventHelp service packages range from roughly $10,000 to $16,000, a sum many customers finance through loans or credit. These figures represent a decline from already low success rates in prior periods, including 0.75 percent from 2015 to 2017 and 0.5 percent from 2007 to 2009.
InventHelp operates under the corporate name Invention Submission Corporation and maintains an estimated 45 to 65 sales offices across the United States, Canada, Germany, and Australia. Its revenue is estimated at $15 million to $36 million annually. The company earns money through upfront fees rather than royalties or licensing outcomes, meaning it is paid regardless of whether an invention succeeds. That structure has been a central criticism from regulators, attorneys, and inventor advocacy groups.
The company’s process typically begins with a free consultation. Inventors often report receiving positive feedback about their ideas, even though InventHelp explicitly states in its contracts that it does not evaluate the merit or marketability of inventions. Clients who sign on are sold packages that may include patent attorney referrals, marketing materials such as drawings, prototypes, and videos, and submissions to what InventHelp describes as a database of more than 9,000 companies.
Investigations and lawsuits have raised questions about that database. Plaintiffs in a class-action case alleged that some listed companies were defunct, had no relationship with InventHelp, or did not exist at all. One example cited in court filings involved a purported entertainment company with a Manhattan address that investigators later found vacant.
InventHelp’s legal history stretches back decades. In 1994, the Federal Trade Commission required the company to set aside $1.2 million for refunds after alleging misrepresentation of its services and success rates. That enforcement action helped spur passage of the American Inventors Protection Act, which requires invention promoters to disclose detailed performance statistics.
More recently, multiple federal lawsuits were consolidated into a class action that resulted in a $3 million settlement approved in March 2023, covering customers from January 2014 through June 2021. The lawsuit alleged deceptive practices, violations of federal law, and a pattern of misleading sales tactics. As part of the settlement, InventHelp agreed to certain business practice reforms, including enhanced complaint tracking. Complaints to the Better Business Bureau, however, have continued with similar themes.
Reviews of InventHelp vary sharply by platform. The Better Business Bureau maintains an A-plus rating, despite the company declining accreditation. Consumer complaint sites and advocacy groups document recurring grievances involving aggressive sales tactics, low-quality deliverables, difficulty obtaining refunds, and marketing efforts that did not appear to reach legitimate manufacturers.
Patent attorneys and the United States Patent and Trademark Office have been consistent in their guidance. The USPTO warns that hundreds of invention promotion firms operate nationwide and that virtually all are either ineffective or outright fraudulent. Many registered patent attorneys advise inventors to avoid such companies entirely, urging them instead to use free government resources, seek pro bono legal assistance, or work directly with licensed professionals.
The numbers themselves are stark. With an average reported cost of about $12,000 and a 0.14 percent chance of profiting, the expected financial return is less than $17. For most customers, the outcome is not innovation or licensing, but debt and disappointment. The lesson, repeated across decades of data and litigation, is that hope alone does not change the math.
