35 U.S.C. § 297

Improper and deceptive invention promotion

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—An invention promoter shall have a duty to disclose the following information to a customer in writing, prior to entering into a contract for invention promotion services:(1) the total number of inventions evaluated by the invention promoter for commercial potential in the past 5 years, as well as the number of those inventions that received positive evaluations, and the number of those inventions that received negative evaluations;(2) the total number of customers who have contracted with the invention promoter in the past 5 years, not including customers who have purchased trade show services, research, advertising, or other nonmarketing services from the invention promoter, or who have defaulted in their payment to the invention promoter;(3) the total number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received a net financial profit as a direct result of the invention promotion services provided by such invention promoter;(4) the total number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received license agreements for their inventions as a direct result of the invention promotion services provided by such invention promoter; and(5) the names and addresses of all previous invention promotion companies with which the invention promoter or its officers have collectively or individually been affiliated in the previous 10 years.(b)Civil Action.—(1) Any customer who enters into a contract with an invention promoter and who is found by a court to have been injured by any material false or fraudulent statement or representation, or any omission of material fact, by that invention promoter (or any agent, employee, director, officer, partner, or independent contractor of such invention promoter), or by the failure of that invention promoter to disclose such information as required under subsection (a), may recover in a civil action against the invention promoter (or the officers, directors, or partners of such invention promoter), in addition to reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees—(A) the amount of actual damages incurred by the customer; or(B) at the election of the customer at any time before final judgment is rendered, statutory damages in a sum of not more than $5,000, as the court considers just.(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in a case where the customer sustains the burden of proof, and the court finds, that the invention promoter intentionally misrepresented or omitted a material fact to such customer, or willfully failed to disclose such information as required under subsection (a), with the purpose of deceiving that customer, the court may increase damages to not more than three times the amount awarded, taking into account past complaints made against the invention promoter that resulted in regulatory sanctions or other corrective actions based on those records compiled by the Commissioner of Patents under subsection (d).(c)Definitions.—For purposes of this section—(1) a “contract for invention promotion services” means a contract by which an invention promoter undertakes invention promotion services for a customer;(2) a “customer” is any individual who enters into a contract with an invention promoter for invention promotion services;(3) the term “invention promoter” means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other entity who offers to perform or performs invention promotion services for, or on behalf of, a customer, and who holds itself out through advertising in any mass media as providing such services, but does not include—(A) any department or agency of the Federal Government or of a State or local government;(B) any nonprofit, charitable, scientific, or educational organization, qualified under applicable State law or described under section 170(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;(C) any person or entity involved in the evaluation to determine commercial potential of, or offering to license or sell, a utility patent or a previously filed nonprovisional utility patent application;(D) any party participating in a transaction involving the sale of the stock or assets of a business; or(E) any party who directly engages in the business of retail sales of products or the distribution of products; and(4) the term “invention promotion services” means the procurement or attempted procurement for a customer of a firm, corporation, or other entity to develop and market products or services that include the invention of the customer.(d)Records of Complaints.—(1)Release of complaints.—The Commissioner of Patents shall make all complaints received by the Patent and Trademark Office involving invention promoters publicly available, together with any response of the invention promoters. The Commissioner of Patents shall notify the invention promoter of a complaint and provide a reasonable opportunity to reply prior to making such complaint publicly available.(2)Request for complaints.—The Commissioner of Patents may request complaints relating to invention promotion services from any Federal or State agency and include such complaints in the records maintained under paragraph (1), together with any response of the invention promoters.(Added Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4102(a)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–552.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 170(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(B), is classified to section 170(b)(1)(A) of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, subtitle A, § 4103], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–554, provided that: “This subtitle [enacting this section and provisions set out as a note under section 1 of this title] and the amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 29, 1999].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Invention Submission Corp. v. Rogan, 357 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Invention Submission Corp. v. Rogan, 357 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “I Congress enacted the Inventors’ Rights Act of 1999, 35 U.S.C. § 297 , to protect inventors from invention promotion scams and the deceptive advertising related to them by authorizing the PTO to publicize complaints that it receives against invention promoters.”

Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, 898 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “35 U.S.C. § 297 (b)(1) (emphasis added). Congress elected in § 145 to provide for the recovery of the PTO's "expenses," not its "attorneys' fees.”

Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc., 288 F. Supp. 3d 872 (E.D. Wis. 2017). “That is prohibited by the Patent Act under 35 U.S.C. § 297 , and the jury was expressly instructed to disregard such matters.”

Co. Doe v. Tenenbaum, 127 F. Supp. 3d 426 (D. Maryland 2012). · cites it 3× “1 (2011)); see also 35 U.S.C. § 297 (b) (2006) (authorizing civil actions against fraudulent invention promoters).”

Deborah Dungee v. Davison Design & Dev. I, 674 F. App'x 153 (3rd Cir. 2017). “” 35 U.S.C. § 297 (b)(1). After the District Court denied Davi-son’s motion to dismiss Dungee’s original complaint, the parties mediated the case and reached a settlement agreement.”

Invention Submission Corp. v. Rogan, 229 F. Supp. 2d 498 (E.D. Va. 2002). · cites it 3× “35 U.S.C. § 297 (2002). The IRA was designed to protect inventors who each year “lose tens of millions of dollars” to “invention promotion scams.”

Co. Doe v. Tenenbaum, 900 F. Supp. 2d 572 (D. Maryland 2012). · cites it 3× “1 (2011)); see also 35 U.S.C. § 297 (b) (2006) (authorizing civil actions against fraudulent invention promoters).”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Davison Assocs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 2d 548 (W.D. Pa. 2006). “The American Inventor’s Protection Act, 35 U.S.C.A. § 297 (“AIPA”), requires invention-promotion firms to make the following disclosures before selling their services: (1) total number of inventions evaluated for commercial potential in the past 5 years, as well as the number of…”

Davison Design & Dev. I v. Betty Frison (3rd Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “There, she pursued a claim under the American Inventors Protection Act, see 35 U.S.C. § 297 , and she received an award of over $13,000 in damages and $10,000 in attorneys’ fees.”

Sager v. Davison Design & Dev., Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2022). · cites it 3× “Thus, plaintiff contends that the controversy between that parties stems from a contract that falls under the American Inventor's Protection Act, 35 U.S.C. § 297 , and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 , which provides jurisdiction for "any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating…”

Myron Knight v. Idea Buyer, LLC (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “They allege that Idea Buyer violated the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA), 35 U.S.C. § 297 . Idea Buyer, like all invention promoters, seeks to find “a firm, corporation, or other entity to develop and market products or services that include” its customers’ inventions.”

Austin v. Invention Submission Corp. (W.D. Pa. 2023). · cites it 2× “Initial Proceedings and Discovery Plaintiffs assert claims that primarily arise under the American Inventors Protection Act, 35 U.S.C. § 297 (AIPA), as well as additional claims under Pennsylvania law.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.