WHY SOME INVENTION DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES CANNOT BE TRUSTED

In addition to invention marketing scam companies, there are unfortunately several design and development agencies and businesses that claim to design and develop inventions and elevate them to a market-ready position. Like invention marketing scammers, they make all sorts of promises but deliver nothing of meaningful value in return for the money paid.

​

USING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY KEYWORDS ON GOOGLE

​

These design and development agencies rely heavily on Google Ads and search engine marketing to attract inventors. However, rather than promoting their core services such as product development, they deliberately target intellectual property (IP) keywords like “apply for a patent,” “file a patent” or “patent application help”.

This strategy exploits the fact that most inventors searching for guidance do not enter terms like “invention product design” or “licensing support”. Instead, they search for patent-related terms - believing this is what they need first and most. By using these keywords, they rank at the top of the page and at the exact moment inventors are seeking assistance. Once an inventor clicks through to the website, the firm further entices them with free resources such as an “Inventor’s Handbook” or “Step-by-Step Patent Guide”. These free offers serve as hooks, capturing contact information and creating the illusion of value while drawing the inventor deeper into the firm’s sales funnel.

​

In reality, these so-called design and development agencies have little intention of providing substantive invention support. Their primary goal is lead generation, capturing inventors’ details and securing upfront fees, rather than delivering genuine commercial services to advance the invention. Recognising this tactic is crucial because true invention support invariably comes from those who don't need to rely on such tactics to attract new business

​

PAID PATENT SEARCH

​

One of the first services that invention design and development agencies charge, for is a patent search. They present it as essential, often at substantial upfront cost, claiming it will determine patentability and protect the inventor from costly mistakes. In reality, the value of these paid patent searches is frequently minimal. Using free databases, they produce generic reports that offer little more than a superficial overview, which are carefully tailored to suggest the project is unique and inventive, and therefore should move to the next stage - which is exactly what they want to justify further fees.

​

Charging upfront for a patent search is a common tactic because it provides immediate revenue while requiring minimal effort. For inventors, this creates the illusion of progress and professionalism, even though no meaningful analysis or strategic guidance is provided.

​

A professional patent search, ideally conducted by a qualified patent attorney or registered search firm, is only one element of a comprehensive IP strategy. It should be integrated with prototype validation, market research and commercial feasibility analysis. Paying for a cursory search from an unqualified provider without professional guidance is expensive and potentially misleading as it gives a false sense of security about patentability and market potential.

​

VANITY VISUALISATIONS AND DESIGN BOARDS

​

Photo-realistic renditions are an essential tool throughout the development pipeline. They are used to assess visual design, iterate concepts and create marketing material once the product is finalised. However, many invention design and development agencies produce vanity visuals and design boards that give a false impression of completed design and development work.

​

While these images may look impressive, they hold minimal practical or commercial value. No real market research has been conducted to assess customer needs, demand or product requirements. No commercial design, productionisation, planning and cost analysis has been performed based on market realities. These visuals are primarily intended to dazzle the client rather than advance the invention toward a commercially viable product.

Potential buyers, licensees and investors invariably require a physical, working product to test functionality, assess manufacturability and determine market readiness. Photo-realistic images alone cannot substitute for tangible proof of concept. They are only useful once the product is market-ready. Until then, they are a cosmetic exercise and do not equate to genuine invention development or commercial readiness.

​

POINTLESS PROTOTYPES

​

Prototypes and market-ready samples serve fundamentally different purposes. Prototypes are early physical models created to validate form, function and technical feasibility before the final design is completed. Market-ready samples are accurate representations of the finished product intended for marketing, investor pitches and licensing discussions. The purpose of a prototype, whether for internal testing, photography or stakeholder engagement, directly affects its design, quality and cost. For example, a prototype created purely for photography only needs to showcase appearance. A market-ready prototype must demonstrate both functionality and form. For licensing and commercial interest, only market-ready prototypes carry credibility and impact. Anything less fails to generate meaningful traction.

​

Unfortunately, these agencies often exploit naivety and create low-value vanity prototypes which look nothing like the polished visuals or renderings produced. Often cobbled together models using off-the-shelf components, cheap materials or DIY parts, they are palmed off as working models - but the reality is, they neither demonstrate manufacturability, functionality or market readiness, or a capable of supporting a licensing submission, investor pitch or serious market engagement - they are produced purely for vanity’s sake, offering no real commercial value.

​

These practices prey on inventors’ enthusiasm and lack of commercial proficiency. While inventors may feel progress is being made, such prototypes primarily serve to flatter the inventor and justify upfront fees rather than advance market readiness or licensing potential. Prototypes must have a clear commercial goal. Anything that cannot convincingly demonstrate real-world functionality, accurately reflect the final design and show market readiness is pointless for invention licensing, patent licensing or IP submissions.

​

VAGUE CREDENTIALS AND EXPERIENCE

​

Anyone can talk a good game and you should always question anyone who uses words such as “our vast experience, extensive knowledge” particularly when their age simply suggests this cannot be the case. 

​

To maximise profit, these so-called design and development agencies recruit newly graduated product designers or employ interns to carry out the bulk of the work. While some may have talent for producing impressive ornamental visuals, they lack the technical and commercial experience to design products that can withstand investor scrutiny or compete for a buyer’s attention.

​

The landscape of commercial product development is not typically navigated by the young. It requires years of dedicated practice to hone skills, accumulate expertise and build the knowledge needed to deliver tangible outcomes. In this field, substantial experience and verifiable credentials are the true measure of success - and real invention design and development goes far beyond superficial aesthetics. It demands solutions that address complex requirements and expectations. Achieving this calls for collaboration across multiple disciplines as well as time and effort, not shortcuts and cheap labour.

​

OVER-RELIANCE ON POSITIVE ONLINE REVIEWS

​

To maintain the narrative that they are credible and worth employing, these firms, just like with their Google Ads campaigns, invest heavily in making sure everyone who contacts them leaves a positive review. On the surface this creates an image of trustworthiness, but a closer look reveals that most of these reviews are misleading. They rarely reflect the agency’s ability to deliver commercial development or market outcomes. Instead, they focus on superficial factors such as administrative efficiency, the prompt delivery of information packs, early first impressions or visually attractive renderings. None of these represent genuine success or measurable progress, and they certainly do not prove that the agency can deliver market-ready inventions or licensing opportunities.

​

THE TRUTH

​

Questionable design and development agencies rarely provide honest assessments. Their business model depends on telling every inventor what they want to hear, regardless of the invention’s actual viability. If any company / business only ever praises a project and fails to offer constructive critique, this is a major red flag.

 

Genuine invention design and development is not about blind encouragement but about identifying weaknesses, refining ideas and charting a realistic path forward - which involves a rigorous evaluation at every stage. This means testing feasibility, analysing costs, considering manufacturing processes, assessing regulatory compliance and validating market demand. Without this level of scrutiny, no invention can move credibly toward commercialisation.

​

Firms that never challenge your assumptions or raise difficult questions are not helping you succeed – they are protecting their own income stream. Cosmetic visuals, generic reports and flattery might make you feel progress is being made, but in reality they are designed to keep you paying for services that offer little or no commercial value.

 

Professional support means tangible deliverables – prototypes that work, validated research, realistic business cases and structured licensing strategies. Anything less is empty promises dressed up to look like progress.

​