Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which court handled lawsuits against Neurocept and what were key filing dates?
Executive Summary
Two distinct litigation tracks appear in the materials: a trademark lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Neurobrands, LLC v. Neurogum, Inc., case no. 2:20-cv-03612) with key filings in April 2020 and November 2021, and a Federal Trade Commission enforcement action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against companies marketing supplements labeled Neurocet/Neurocept, with public agency action dating to early 2022. Sources show inconsistent naming (Neurocept, Neurocet, Neurogum) and incomplete mappings between trademark records and the enforcement actions, so careful cross-checking of party names and dockets is required. [1] [2] [3]
1. What the documents actually claim about a Central District of California case — the courtroom story that’s clear
The clearest claim across the provided analyses is that the District Court for the Central District of California handled a trademark dispute captioned Neurobrands, LLC v. Neurogum, Inc., docket number 2:20-cv-03612. Key docket milestones cited are the complaint filed on April 20, 2020, and a joint stipulation to dismiss the case pursuant to settlement, filed November 16, 2021, with the court entering dismissal with prejudice on the same date. The materials identify counsel for plaintiff and defendant and note multiple docket entries that chronicle ordinary litigation activity; the CourtListener entry used as evidence was last updated April 30, 2025. This paints a conventional trademark suit that resolved by settlement. [1]
2. FTC enforcement in the Southern District of Florida — public health claims and a multimillion-dollar judgment
A second, separate strand of litigation involves the Federal Trade Commission’s action against marketers of supplements branded Neurocet (referred to interchangeably as Neurocept in some write-ups). The FTC approved a 5-0 vote to file a complaint and proposed stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; publicly reported relief included a judgment figure exceeding $38.1 million, with a portion suspended for inability to pay. The complaint alleges deceptive advertising and false health claims for supplements marketed as pain- and aging-related treatments, and the stipulated order bars defendants from making unsubstantiated health claims. The FTC announcement cited in the materials is dated February 6, 2022. [2]
3. Trademark records and earlier filings — a separate administrative trail that complicates the picture
Trademark records for the NEUROCEPT mark appear in public USPTO-related documents with filing and status actions spanning 1997, 2001, and 2005, including an abandonment notice in 2009 due to failure to file a use statement. Those administrative filings are not litigation dockets and do not by themselves identify which court would hear any ensuing lawsuits, but they do show longstanding commercial use attempts and procedural lapses that can affect trademark ownership and enforcement posture. The materials underscore that trademark prosecution history is distinct from federal court disputes and that older USPTO events do not map directly to the 2020–2021 Central District of California litigation or the FTC enforcement. [3] [4]
4. Conflicting names and overlapping stories — why Neurocept, Neurocet, Neurogum and Neurobrands are different threads
The dataset mixes several names: Neurocept (a trademark/brand variant), Neurocet (used in FTC materials), Neurogum, Inc. (defendant in the Central District case), and Neurobrands, LLC (plaintiff in that same case). These are not proven to be the same corporate entity or products, and the sources treat them as separate matters: one is a private trademark infringement suit; another is a federal consumer-protection enforcement action against direct-mail pill marketers. The inconsistent naming suggests either divergent business entities using similar marks or reporting conflation. Users should not assume a single lawsuit or a single defendant across the records without corroborating party identifiers and docket numbers. [1] [2] [3]
5. How credible sources and dates line up — where facts converge and where gaps remain
Facts converge on two precise timelines: April 20, 2020 (complaint filed in Central District of California case) and November 16, 2021 (stipulation and dismissal with prejudice), supported by CourtListener data updated April 30, 2025. Separately, the FTC action is documented in February 2022 materials describing the proposed stipulated order and judgment. Gaps remain in tying trademark filing dates (1997–2005) or USPTO abandonment [5] to these federal matters. The materials offer agency press releases and docket snapshots but lack a single authoritative narrative reconciling corporate identities, product labels, and counsel across the two litigation tracks. [1] [2] [4]
6. Bottom line and recommended next steps for verification
The confirmed court handling the trademark suit is the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (case 2:20-cv-03612) with key filings in April 2020 and November 2021; the FTC enforcement was filed in the Southern District of Florida with public action in February 2022. To remove remaining ambiguity, retrieve the Central District docket and the Southern District of Florida docket by case number or party name on PACER, and cross-check corporate registry records for the exact legal names behind the brand variants. These steps will definitively resolve whether the cases involve the same products or separate actors and will show any additional post-2021 proceedings not captured in the supplied analyses. [1] [2]