Davison Design & Development Invention Lawsuit, If You Paid and Got Nothing, You May Have a Legal Claim

Davison Design & Development, Inc. — the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based invention promotion company — has faced federal court action, a class action lawsuit, a $26 million judgment, and thousands of consumer complaints alleging it charged inventors thousands of dollars while delivering little or nothing of value. No new certified class action is currently active as of May 2026, but individual legal claims under federal law remain available to people who believe they were misled. If you paid Davison and feel like you got nothing in return, this article explains exactly what happened, what the law says, and what your options are right now.

Davison Design Lawsuit — Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Company	Davison Design & Development, Inc. (formerly Davison & Associates, Inc.)
Headquarters	Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
FTC Case Filed	1997 — Western District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 97-1278
Federal Judgment	$26 million (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania)
FTC Settlement Paid	$10 million — July 2008
Class Action	Dungee v. Davison Design & Development, Inc. — U.S. District Court, District of Delaware
Class Action Statute	American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA), 35 U.S.C. § 297
Class Action Outcome	Settled; class counsel awarded $1,118,936.40 in fees
Current Class Action	No certified active class action as of May 23, 2026
Active Legal Path	Individual AIPA claims, breach of contract, consumer fraud complaints
Where to Report	USPTO.gov (invention promoter complaints) · FTC.gov (consumer complaints)
Last Updated	May 23, 2026

What Davison Design & Development Is Accused of Doing — and What the Courts Found

If you are reading this, you probably already know the pitch. Davison contacts inventors through TV commercials and online ads, offers a free review of your idea, and eventually asks you to pay — sometimes hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars — for design, development, and licensing services.

The FTC sued Davison & Associates, Inc. for allegedly making false claims in internet and classified ads to sign up inventors by boasting of relationships with manufacturers. The company claimed that its income came from sharing royalties with inventors rather than from the fees of $800 to $12,000 charged to each inventor.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania did not accept Davison’s defense. The FTC said fewer than one percent of customers who invested in Davison’s services got royalties from their patents that amounted to more than they paid the promoters.

Davison charged up to $12,000 to “evaluate and promote” a customer’s invention, lied about its track record, and claimed it paid out money from royalties rather than from new fees. A federal judge in Pennsylvania ordered Davison to pay $26 million in consumer redress.

The proposed FTC settlement suspended that judgment once the defendants transferred cash and other assets valued at about $10 million, including residences in Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania.

The injunction that followed the FTC action required Davison to provide specific disclosures to every new client — including its actual success rates — before accepting any money. The court noted this was in addition to the disclosure required by the AIPA, and it was needed due to Davison’s “blatant, varied, and repeated misrepresentations regarding their selectivity and success rate and the importance of royalties to their relationship with consumers.”

Related article: Veritone Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit, VERI Investors Who Lost Money Are Fighting Back Investors Have Until July 20

For a deeper look at how consumer fraud class actions work and how individuals pursue compensation for damages, the Ticketmaster Lawsuit — FTC and Consumer Fraud Claims coverage on AllAboutLawyer.com is a useful reference on how federal regulators and private plaintiffs can pursue the same company simultaneously.

The Dungee Class Action — What It Was and What It Means for You

The Dungee case is the most significant class action ever brought against Davison, and understanding it tells you exactly what legal rights inventors like you actually have.

Named plaintiff Deborah Dungee filed the class action on behalf of herself and certain other individuals who had entered into contracts with Davison Design & Development for invention promotion services. Dungee’s suit included class claims against Davison for violations of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and for breach of contract.

The AIPA — specifically 35 U.S.C. § 297 — is the federal law that governs consumer fraud lawsuits against invention promotion companies. It requires them to disclose their actual success rates before taking your money. If those disclosures were false, incomplete, or never given to you at all, you have grounds for a legal claim.

After the District Court denied Davison’s motion to dismiss, the parties mediated and reached a settlement agreement. The District Court held a class action settlement fairness hearing, and class counsel was ultimately awarded $1,118,936.40 in attorneys’ fees.

That settlement is closed. If you paid Davison before that case was resolved and were not notified of it, or if you entered into a contract with Davison after the settlement period ended, that case does not automatically help you. But the legal theory — that Davison violated the AIPA by making material misrepresentations — is still available to individuals today.

Are You Part of Any Current Davison Legal Action?

Here is the honest answer: as of May 23, 2026, there is no newly certified active class action against Davison with an open claims period.

You may have an individual legal claim if:

• You paid Davison any amount for invention promotion, design, development, or licensing services
• Davison did not provide you with a written disclosure of its actual success rates before taking your money — as required by 35 U.S.C. § 297 of the AIPA
• Davison made verbal or written promises about licensing relationships, royalty income, or market access that were not fulfilled
• You received a “prototype” or “model” that did not match what you were promised or paid for
• Davison continued to charge you additional fees beyond your original contract without clear written authorization

You are likely NOT part of the Dungee class settlement if:

• You entered into a contract with Davison after the Dungee settlement period closed
• You were a new client who received the post-FTC-settlement disclosures before signing — though receiving disclosures does not necessarily bar an AIPA claim if other misrepresentations were made

Under the AIPA, invention promotion companies are required to make disclosures regarding the number of clients, the number of patents obtained, the number of clients who made money using their services, and the number of clients who made more money than they paid the company. If Davison did not provide such disclosures, they are in violation of the Act.

What Davison Clients Are Reporting Right Now

The FTC case closed in 2008. But the complaints have not stopped.

One client who contracted with Davison between 2020 and 2024 to develop an invention paid more than $15,441 based on representations that Davison would create a functional prototype and present the product to potential companies. What was ultimately delivered was described as a large plastic headset shell with no display, no functional interior, no electronics, and no operable features.

Another client contracted with Davison in August 2024 and paid for invention development and licensing services. By mid-2025, Davison demanded additional payment for a service not clearly disclosed in the original agreement. When the client declined, Davison stopped all proactive licensing efforts and placed the project in “Reactive Status.”

Other clients report paying amounts ranging from $14,000 to $17,505 and filing complaints with the Federal Trade Commission and state attorney general offices after receiving nothing of commercial value.

These are individual accounts — not a certified class. But they reflect a consistent pattern that mirrors exactly what courts and the FTC found in earlier proceedings.

What You Should Do Right Now If You Paid Davison

You have real legal options. Here is what to do, in order.

Step 1 — File a complaint with the USPTO. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office maintains a public database of invention promoter complaints at uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/scam-prevention. Filing here is free and creates an official record.

Step 2 — File a complaint with the FTC. Report your experience at reportfraud.ftc.gov. The FTC uses these reports to identify patterns and build enforcement actions. Your complaint may contribute to a future case.

Step 3 — Contact a consumer rights lawyer immediately. The AIPA contains a fee-shifting provision — if you win an AIPA claim, Davison may be required to pay your attorney’s fees and reasonable costs. That means attorneys who handle these cases often take them on contingency or reduced-fee arrangements. A free legal consultation with a consumer fraud attorney will tell you exactly whether your facts support an AIPA claim, a breach of contract claim, or both.

Step 4 — Gather every document you have. Your signed contract, all payment receipts, every email and voicemail, the prototype or materials they sent you, and any written promises from Davison representatives are all potential evidence. Do not delete anything.

Step 5 — Check your state’s consumer protection law. Many states have consumer fraud statutes that run parallel to the AIPA and allow additional compensation for damages. A class action lawsuit attorney in your state can advise on whether your state’s law gives you additional rights beyond the federal statute.

Davison Design Legal Timeline

Milestone	Date
FTC files suit against Davison & Associates	1997
FTC case assigned — Western District of Pennsylvania, No. 97-1278	1997
Federal judge enters $26 million judgment against Davison	2006
FTC obtains permanent injunction; Davison ordered to disclose success rates	April 2006
Davison settles with FTC — pays approximately $10 million	July 2008
Dungee v. Davison — class action filed, District of Delaware (AIPA + breach of contract)	2011
Dungee class action settled; $1.1M in attorneys’ fees awarded to class counsel	2015–2018
Ongoing individual AIPA and arbitration claims filed by inventors	2018–present
Plummer v. Davison Design — dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute	April 2024
Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Scorza — Third Circuit, No. 24-1442	March 2025
New active class action against Davison	None as of May 23, 2026

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a class action lawsuit against Davison Design & Development right now? 

No certified active class action is open for new claims as of May 2026. The most significant class action — Dungee v. Davison Design & Development — alleged violations of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and was settled in the District of Delaware. That case is closed. Individual claims under the AIPA remain available.

Do I need to do anything right now to protect my legal rights?

 Yes — and time matters. Statutes of limitations apply to AIPA and breach of contract claims. If you paid Davison and believe you were misled, consult a consumer rights lawyer now, before your window to file closes. Every month you wait is a month you may not get back.

When will a new class action against Davison be filed? 

TBD — no attorneys have publicly announced a new certified class action as of May 2026. If enough affected inventors come forward with similar documented experiences, a new false advertising class action or AIPA class action becomes legally viable. Filing individual complaints with the FTC and USPTO helps build that record.

Can I file my own lawsuit against Davison instead of joining a class? 

Yes. Under the AIPA, invention promotion companies are required to make specific disclosures, and if Davison failed to provide them, you are in violation — and you can sue individually. Individual AIPA claims can result in damages plus attorneys’ fees paid by Davison if you prevail.

How do I know if Davison violated the AIPA in my case?

 The FTC settlement required Davison to disclose, before accepting money, how many clients contracted with them, how many clients made a net profit, and how many product licenses were actually obtained for consumers. If you were not given clear, written disclosures of those statistics before you signed and paid, that is a potential AIPA violation. An attorney can review your contract and correspondence and give you a direct answer.

How will I know if a new Davison class action is filed?

 Monitor the FTC at ftc.gov and the USPTO at uspto.gov. You can also set a Google Alert for “Davison Design class action.” If a new class is certified, class members will receive direct notice by mail.

What happened to the money from the FTC case?

The FTC settlement required Davison to transfer cash and other assets valued at approximately $10 million, including residential properties in Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania, to resolve the $26 million federal court judgment. Consumer redress from that action was distributed to affected inventors who had contracted with Davison under the original FTC enforcement period.

Sources & References

• FTC v. Davison & Associates, Inc. et al. — U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 97-1278: ftc.gov/legal-library
• FTC Press Release: “Invention Promoters Will Pay $10 Million to Settle FTC Charges,” July 18, 2008: ftc.gov
• Dungee v. Davison Design & Development, Inc. — U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, No. 16-1486 (2017): law.justia.com
• American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, 35 U.S.C. § 297: uspto.gov
• USPTO Invention Promoter Scam Prevention: uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/scam-prevention
• FTC Consumer Reporting: reportfraud.ftc.gov

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against FTC case records, PACER court filings, and USPTO published complaints. Last Updated: May 23, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney regarding your specific situation and applicable statutes of limitation.