Are there patents filed by Paul Cox mentioning neurocept or related compounds?
Executive summary
There is no evidence in the supplied reporting that Paul Alan Cox filed patents that mention a compound or trademarked name “neurocept” or that explicitly link him to a product called Neurocept; the sources document Cox’s involvement in many patent filings (including prostratin and other inventions) but do not identify any patent text or application containing the term “neurocept” or an obvious synonym in the material provided [1] [2] [3] [4]. The available reporting confirms Cox’s broad patenting activity but does not support the specific claim that he filed patents referencing “neurocept” or clearly related compounds.
1. Paul Cox’s patenting record is well-attested, but the supplied sources name other compounds and inventions, not “neurocept.”
Multiple pieces of the supplied reporting establish that Paul Alan Cox has been involved in patent activity for decades and is associated with dozens of patents—Fortune and Deseret coverage note his licensing of an anti‑HIV compound (prostratin) and state he is “listed on 59 patents” and helped patent prostratin under terms favorable to Samoan stakeholders [5] [1]. Brain Chemistry Labs’ own blog also reports the organization “has applied for a patent” on a blood test the lab is developing, showing active IP work in diagnostics [2]. Justia search pages show patent listings under names like “J. Cox” and “Paul A. Cox,” indicating multiple patent filings across different Paul Cox permutations, but none of the Justia snippets supplied include the term “neurocept” [3] [4].
2. The supplied sources document drug-discovery activity and specific compounds, but not the term “neurocept.”
Reporting highlights concrete examples of Cox’s ethnobotanical discoveries—tree‑bark derived compounds licensed for HIV research and recent violet‑derived compounds and blood‑test technology—but none of those articles or organizational pages mention “neurocept” or a directly related chemical family in the excerpts provided [5] [6] [2]. Brain Chemistry Labs promotes research into treatments for Alzheimer’s, ALS and glioblastoma and describes patent activity for diagnostics and molecules, yet the excerpts supplied do not quote any patent documents that include “neurocept” [7] [8] [2].
3. Public patent listings under Cox’s name exist, but the supplied indexes don’t show a “neurocept” entry—limitation of the evidence.
Search results from Justia included in the material show pages for inventors named “J. Cox,” “Paul A. Cox,” and “Christopher Paul Cox,” and mention inventions that include kinase inhibitors and pharmaceutical compounds, but the snippets do not demonstrate a match to “neurocept” and the provided content does not include full patent texts or claims to verify terminology [3] [4] [9]. Therefore, while the existence of patent filings by individuals named Paul Cox is confirmed in the supplied reporting, whether any of those filings contain the word “neurocept” or describe an identifiably related compound cannot be affirmed from these sources alone.
4. Alternative explanations and reporting bias: names and trademarks complicate searchability.
“Neurocept” could be a trademark, internal project name, or a different inventor’s term; patent documents may list chemical names, IUPAC nomenclature, or broad functional descriptions rather than brand‑style names, making a straightforward keyword search for “neurocept” unreliable unless the brand name was explicitly used in the filing. The reporting emphasizes Cox’s ethnobotanical leads and selective patents (prostratin, a violet compound, a blood test), which may steer public attention away from exhaustive patent indexing; the supplied sources do not present comprehensive patent-search results or patent‑office records that would definitively answer the question [5] [1] [2].
5. Conclusion and gap statement: available reporting does not support the claim that Paul Cox filed patents mentioning “neurocept.”
Based on the supplied reporting, Paul Alan Cox is demonstrably active in patenting and has been associated with numerous filings and licensed compounds [5] [1] [2], but none of the excerpts and indexes provided contain the term “neurocept” or an explicit equivalent; therefore, the claim that he filed patents mentioning “neurocept” is unsupported by these sources. Absent a direct snippet or a full-text patent citation showing the term, the question cannot be answered affirmatively from the material provided; a definitive determination would require searching patent-office records (USPTO, EPO, WIPO) or full patent documents for the exact string “neurocept” and related chemical identifiers, which the supplied reporting does not include [3] [4].