The main InventHelp lawsuit was a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that ended in a $3 million settlement, approved on March 8, 2023. It covered U.S. residents who purchased services from InventHelp or Western InventHelp between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2021. The claims deadline has passed, and the settlement is closed.
What the Lawsuits Alleged
Three cases filed between 2018 and 2020 were consolidated into a single class action against Invention Submission Corporation, doing business as InventHelp, along with several affiliated entities and its principal, Robert J. Susa. Plaintiffs brought claims under the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, which requires invention promoters to disclose their track record, and added state-law claims for fraud, breach of contract, and consumer protection violations.
The heart of the case was that InventHelp collected substantial fees for invention promotion services it had little capacity or intention to provide. According to the complaints, the company advertised access to a proprietary database of “more than 9,000 companies” that had supposedly agreed to review client inventions. Investigators cited in court filings said many of those companies were defunct, had no relationship with InventHelp, or did not exist. One purported entertainment company on the list was reportedly a vacant address.
Clients were allegedly told during free consultations that their inventions were unique, patentable, and had strong profit potential. The complaints alleged InventHelp gave nearly all prospective clients favorable preliminary assessments regardless of whether similar patents already existed, and used those opinions to steer them into larger packages. Fees ranged from about $700 for basic informational materials to $30,000 for comprehensive submission services, with most clients paying between $10,000 and $16,000. Once the money was collected, the lawsuits alleged, the company did “little to nothing” to market the inventions and went silent, “dodging calls for months or years.”
Intromark Incorporated, an affiliate sharing the same Pittsburgh address, ownership, and management as InventHelp, drew particular scrutiny. Every customer who signed a submission agreement was also required to sign a contract with Intromark. The Miclaus complaint alleged Intromark created “sham” 60-day license agreements to inflate the licensing numbers the company was required to report under the AIPA.
InventHelp did not admit wrongdoing. The court’s final approval order stated the agreement “shall not be construed as an admission of liability, fault, or wrongdoing.”
Who Was Covered and What Class Members Received
The court certified a settlement class of 53,223 U.S. residents who purchased InventHelp or Western InventHelp services between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2021. InventHelp paid $3 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund, meaning nothing left over went back to the company. From that fund, the court approved $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees for class counsel at Berger Montague, $150,000 in litigation expenses, and $3,000 service awards for each named class representative.
What individual class members received depended on the contract they had signed:
- Customers who fully paid for a Basic Information Package received a $20 cash payment (covering 29,478 agreements).
- Basic Information Package customers with unpaid balances received a $20 credit against those balances (covering 7,404 agreements).
- Submission Agreement customers with open balances received an $800 credit, or alternatively invention services valued at no less than $3,000, including inclusion in InventHelp’s Virtual Invention Browsing Experience catalog and distribution to 50 companies.
- Submission Agreement customers with closed accounts received an automatic $1,500 credit against outstanding balances, with no claim form required.
- Submission Agreement customers who fully paid received a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund (capped at $250) plus invention services valued at $3,000 or more.
For customers whose balances were eliminated or reduced under the settlement, InventHelp was required to ask credit bureaus to remove or modify related negative reporting.
Can You Still File a Claim?
No. The claims deadline was January 6, 2023, and the settlement, administered by Angeion Group, LLC, is closed as of 2025. If you paid InventHelp outside the January 2014 to June 2021 window, or if you missed the claims deadline, this settlement does not cover you. Complaints against invention promoters can still be filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s public complaint database under the AIPA, though the USPTO does not investigate those complaints or participate in litigation.
Business Practice Changes InventHelp Agreed To
Beyond the money, the settlement required InventHelp to put six operational reforms in place for at least five years. Those include establishing a dedicated customer care team, improving the accuracy of its company database, launching a customer satisfaction outreach program, changing its advertising practices, and updating written disclosures about service timetables and licensing agreements.
The 1994 FTC Action
The class action was not InventHelp’s first legal trouble. In 1994, the Federal Trade Commission took enforcement action alleging the company misrepresented its services and success rates. That case required InventHelp to set aside $1.2 million for customer refunds and helped push Congress to pass the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, the same disclosure law the class action later accused InventHelp of violating.
What InventHelp’s Own Numbers Show
InventHelp’s mandatory AIPA disclosures report a very low success rate. For the 2022–2024 reporting period, 5 of 3,507 clients earned more money than they paid the company, a rate of 0.14%. Earlier periods were similar: 0.75% for 2015–2017 and 0.5% for 2007–2009. The company’s contracts state that it does not evaluate an invention’s merit or marketability.
Consumer complaints have continued after the settlement. As of mid-2026, InventHelp’s Better Business Bureau profile shows an A+ rating but notes the company is not BBB accredited, and lists 14 complaints over the previous three years, 10 of them involving service or repair issues. The USPTO has warned that “virtually all” invention promotion firms are either ineffective or fraudulent and has advised inventors to look for pro bono legal help or government resources instead.