American Inventors
Protection Act
of 1999.The federal statute governing the firm's disclosures to inventors who engage it for patent or invention-promotion services. Six specific disclosures, before any agreement is signed. The firm provides them on every engagement that touches patent work — by default, not by request.
Six disclosures, signed before any patent-related work begins.
The statute,
in fivesentences.
35 U.S.C. § 297 was passed in 1999 to protect inventors from the practice of charging high fees up front for invention-promotion services with vague promises of return. The statute requires anyone acting as an "invention promoter" to disclose six specific pieces of track-record information — in writing — before the inventor signs anything. If those disclosures are materially false or absent, the inventor can sue for actual damages, statutory damages of at least $5,000, attorneys' fees, and treble damages for willful violations. The firm provides these disclosures on every engagement that touches patent or invention-related work, even where federal jurisdiction would not technically apply. Standard practice — not discretionary.
The harm
Pre-AIPA, invention-promotion services often charged thousands of dollars up front while quietly succeeding for vanishingly few clients. Inventors learned the track record only after spending the money.
The fix
Make the track record public-to-the-inventor before any contract is signed. Six specific figures the inventor can compare across providers. Disclosure is the regulation.
The teeth
Civil liability with a $5,000 floor, attorneys' fees, and treble damages for willful violations. Federal jurisdiction. Enforceable by the inventor, not a regulator.
Why a consulting
firm publishesthis statute.
The firm does not market itself as an "invention promoter" in the statute's technical sense — but engagements that touch patent strategy, IP development, or coordination with external patent counsel sit close enough to that perimeter that the firm chooses to operate above the line by default. Publishing the statute is half of that posture; the other half is the disclosures themselves, made part of every patent-related engagement.
- Engagements covered
- Patent & IP workAny engagement where the firm advises on patentability, drafts inventor-facing strategy, or coordinates external patent counsel.
- Engagements not covered
- General consultingMarketing, brand, growth, and operations engagements that do not touch the inventor-facing patent process.
- Default posture
- Disclose anywayWhere coverage is ambiguous, the firm provides the disclosures. The cost of giving them is zero; the cost of needing them and not having them is not.
External patent counsel handles the prosecution itself.
The firm does not prosecute patent applications — that is the work of registered patent attorneys engaged separately. The firm advises on strategy, coordinates with counsel, and prepares the materials that make counsel's work efficient. The § 297 disclosures travel with the strategy work.
The disclosure
requirement,verbatim.
Subsection (a) establishes the disclosure duty. It names the trigger ("before any contract"), the form (in writing), and lists the six items that must be disclosed. The text below is paraphrased for readability — refer to the official U.S. Code for the controlling language. uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title35-section297
(a)(1)The total number of inventions evaluated by the invention promoter for commercial potential in the past five years, as well as the number of those inventions that received positive evaluations, and the number of those inventions that received negative evaluations.
(a)(2)The total number of customers who have contracted with the invention promoter in the past five years, not including customers who have purchased trade-show services, research, advertising, or other non-marketing services from the invention promoter, or who have defaulted in their payment to the invention promoter.
(a)(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.
(a)(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.
(a)(5)The names and addresses of all previous invention promoters with which the invention promoter or its officers have collectively or individually been affiliated in the previous ten years.
The right
of civilaction.
Subsection (b) is what gives the disclosure duty teeth. An aggrieved customer can sue the invention promoter in federal district court for materially false or fraudulent statements, omissions of material information, or failures to make the required disclosures. Damages are explicit; treble damages are available for willful conduct.
(b)(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 —
(b)(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.
The $5,000 statutory minimum is the inventor's safety net.
Where actual damages are difficult to prove or are smaller than $5,000, the customer can elect the statutory amount instead — at any time before final judgment. Attorneys' fees and costs are recoverable on top. Treble damages add the punitive layer for willful conduct.
Definitions —
who countsas a promoter.
Subsection (c) is the definitional spine. It names what an "invention promoter" is, what counts as "customer," and what the act of "invention promotion" covers. Reading these carefully matters: organizations whose primary function is something other than invention promotion are generally outside scope, but the boundary is one a careful firm watches.
(c)(1)"contract for invention-promotion services" — means a contract by which an invention promoter undertakes invention-promotion services for a customer.
(c)(2)"customer" — means any individual who enters into a contract with an invention promoter for invention-promotion services.
(c)(3)"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 medium as providing such services, but does not include — (A) any department or agency of the Federal Government or of a State or a political subdivision of a State; (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 evaluating the 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.
(c)(4)"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.
What is
actuallyhanded over.
The statute lists five items in subsection (a) — they are typically counted as six because (a)(1) is itself a triplet (total evaluations, positive evaluations, negative evaluations). The firm provides them as a one-page disclosure attached to the engagement letter; the page below shows what each line means and where the underlying numbers come from.
Total inventions evaluated in the last 5 years
Count of every invention the firm has reviewed for commercial potential in the five years ending on the disclosure date. Pulled directly from the firm's engagement records, segmented by year. Aggregate number disclosed; per-engagement detail not disclosed.
Number receiving a positive evaluation
Of the inventions evaluated, the count that received a positive commercial-potential evaluation. Methodology: any evaluation marked "Proceed to filing" or "Strategic recommendation: pursue" in the firm's review tooling.
Number receiving a negative evaluation
The complement of (02). Inventions where the firm's recommendation was to hold, redesign, or not pursue. The count is published — the underlying reasons are confidential to the engagement.
Customers in the last 5 years
Count of customers who signed an engagement letter with the firm in the prior five years for patent or invention-related services. Excludes customers who purchased trade-show services, research, advertising, or other non-marketing services. Excludes customers who defaulted on payment.
Customers with net financial profit
Of those customers, the number known to the firm to have received a net financial profit as a direct result of the firm's services. The firm's threshold: any documented revenue or license consideration that exceeds the fees paid for the engagement.
Customers with license agreements
Of those customers, the number known to the firm to have signed a license agreement for their invention as a direct result of the firm's services. Counted as of the disclosure date; updated quarterly.
Affiliated invention promoters, last 10 years
Required by (a)(5). The names and addresses of all previous invention promoters with which the firm or its officers have collectively or individually been affiliated in the last ten years. The firm's answer is currently "None" — the disclosure form lists each officer by name and confirms.
When and how
the disclosureis delivered.
The statute requires the disclosures "prior to entering into a contract." In the firm's process, that means the one-page disclosure travels with the engagement letter and is countersigned at the same time. The inventor's signature on the disclosure form acknowledges receipt; the signature on the engagement letter acknowledges agreement.
At engagement letter
The disclosure sheet is attached to the engagement letter. It carries the same date and is countersigned by both parties on the same day. The inventor takes home a copy.
In writing
PDF for digital signatures; printed paper where the engagement is signed in person. Electronic-signature platforms used in the firm record the disclosure as a separate, named exhibit to the agreement.
Refreshed quarterly
The underlying figures are refreshed at the end of each calendar quarter from the firm's engagement records. The disclosure date on the form reflects the most recent refresh, not just the day it was signed.
If the disclosures are missing or false, the contract is voidable at the customer's option.
The statute makes this explicit at (a). The firm's posture is to provide the disclosures by default — the voidability provision is not a remedy the firm wants any customer to need.
What a customer
can recoverunder § 297.
The remedy structure runs in three tiers. Actual damages at the bottom — the customer's measurable harm. Statutory damages of up to $5,000 as an election the customer can make any time before final judgment. Treble damages on top, where the customer proves the misrepresentation or omission was willful and intended to deceive.
| Tier | What It Covers | Election / Trigger |
|---|---|---|
| 01 · ACTUAL | Measurable financial harm caused by the misrepresentation or omission. Documented losses, money paid that wouldn't have been paid with accurate disclosures. | Default remedy |
| 02 · STATUTORY | A sum of not more than $5,000, awarded as the court considers just. Designed as a floor for cases where actual damages are difficult to prove or small in absolute terms. | Customer election · pre-judgment |
| 03 · TREBLE | Up to three times the awarded damages. Layered on top where the misrepresentation or omission was intentional and aimed at deceiving the customer. | Willfulness · customer's burden |
| + FEES | Reasonable costs of the action and reasonable attorneys' fees, in addition to any of the above. Recoverable when the customer prevails. | Prevailing customer |
What it
looks likein practice.
Compliance is operational — not just legal. The firm maintains the underlying figures in its engagement records, refreshes them on a published cadence, and embeds the disclosure step in the standard engagement workflow so it never depends on someone remembering to do it.
Disclosure attached to every patent-related engagement letter.
The engagement-letter template for IP and patent work includes the disclosure form as a numbered exhibit. The form cannot be removed without Legal's sign-off; the workflow forces it.
SEE THE SIX →Underlying numbers refreshed quarterly.
Engagement records are reconciled at the end of each calendar quarter. The refreshed figures populate the disclosure template; the template's footer carries the date of the most recent refresh.
TIMING →External counsel sees the same disclosures.
Where the firm coordinates with external patent counsel, counsel receives the same disclosure form so the customer is not asked to digest a different version of the firm's track record from a second source.
[email protected] →- Inventions evaluated
- Firm engagement ledgerRecords of every engagement opened in the last 5 years.
- Customers served
- CRM & finance systemNet of trade-show, research, advertising, and defaulting customers.
- Net profit / licenses
- Customer self-reportingVerified where the firm has visibility through the engagement.
- Affiliated promoters
- Officer attestationEach named officer signs the affiliation register annually.
- Refresh cadence
- Quarterly (Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct)Date of most recent refresh appears on every disclosure form.
- Audit trail
- Retained 7 yearsPer the firm's standard engagement-records retention window.
What customers
most oftenask.
Five questions that come up regularly when an inventor reads the statute for the first time. Plain answers; the underlying statute is the controlling authority.
Sometimes, depending on the engagement. The firm defaults to operating as if the answer is yes.
The statute's definition turns on advertising as an invention promoter through a "mass medium" and offering invention-promotion services. The firm's website discusses patent strategy and IP work, which can put specific engagements inside the definition. Rather than litigate the perimeter on a per-engagement basis, the firm provides the disclosures whenever patent or invention work is in scope.
Then the disclosures are not required — but they're available anyway.
If the engagement is purely marketing, growth, brand, or operations, § 297 does not apply. If you want a copy of the disclosure form for your own records, write to [email protected]; the firm sends it as a courtesy without requiring a triggering engagement.
The disclosed totals are aggregate, sourced from records the firm retains for seven years.
The firm does not publish per-customer detail — that would violate confidentiality. Aggregate totals are derived from the engagement ledger and CRM; the firm's records are auditable on a subpoena or as part of a § 297 action where standing is established.
This is a federal disclosure duty; the CA is a private mutual agreement.
The CA governs how each party handles the other's confidential information during and after the engagement. § 297 governs what the firm must tell you about its track record before you sign. The two run in parallel; one does not replace the other.
The federal cause of action under § 297 is a U.S. statute.
For non-U.S. customers, equivalent consumer-protection frameworks may apply locally and the firm provides analogous disclosures where required. The U.S. disclosure form travels with all engagements involving patent work regardless of customer location.
Two inboxes
handle § 297questions.
Substantive questions about the firm's patent practice or the disclosure figures route to IP. Statutory-interpretation questions and disclosure-form requests for non-engaged inventors route to Legal. Either is fine — they coordinate on the back end.
Patent practice& disclosures.
Substantive patent strategy, current track-record figures, coordination with external counsel, disclosure-form copies for prospective engagements.
[email protected] →- Legal
- [email protected]Statute interpretation · disputes
- Patent & IP Services
- Discipline page →The practice this disclosure applies to
- Confidentiality
- Confidentiality Agreement →Runs in parallel with § 297
- Index
- All 15 Documents →
Six disclosures.
Every patentengagement.
The statute is short and the disclosures are simple. The firm publishes them here in addition to handing them to every customer because the inventor reading this on the site deserves the same information as the inventor sitting at the kickoff table.