On October 30, 2026, the Federal Circuit decided ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., No. 2025-1227, a nonprecedential appeal from the District of Delaware. The plaintiffs and appellants are ChromaDex, Inc. and the Trustees of Dartmouth College, which the opinion calls ChromaDex collectively and identifies as the owners of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,197,807 and 8,383,086. The opinion says the claimed inventions in both patents concern dietary supplements containing isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR). The district court awarded Elysium $9,151,133 in attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and the Federal Circuit reversed (Op. 2-3, 8, 12).

How the case got here

In September 2018, ChromaDex sued Elysium for infringement of claims 1-3 of the '807 patent and claim 2 of the '086 patent. In ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., 59 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court affirmed summary judgment that claims 1-3 of the '807 patent are directed to a product of nature and ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. It did not address claim 2 of the '086 patent because the invalidity challenge to that claim was voluntarily dismissed. Elysium then moved for fees, arguing that ChromaDex pursued the case as if Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), did not exist. The district court agreed that Myriad decided the issue and found the case exceptional (Op. 2, 4-8 and n.4).

Claim 1 of the '807 patent, which the opinion treats as representative of both patents, recites a composition comprising isolated nicotinamide riboside in combination with one or more of tryptophan, nicotinic acid, or nicotinamide, in admixture with a carrier, formulated for oral administration, that "increases NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration" (Op. 3).

The USPTO's inter partes review certificates for the '086 patent show claims 1 and 3-5 cancelled and claim 2 found patentable in IPR2017-01795 (certificate issued May 24, 2021), and claim 2 cancelled in IPR2021-00268 (certificate issued January 19, 2023).

What the court held

Judge Chen wrote for a panel that also included Circuit Judges Prost and Stoll. The court said it was legal error to treat Myriad as "the beginning and the end" of the eligibility analysis. ChromaDex had argued that its claimed compositions possess markedly different characteristics and have the potential for significant utility because isolated NR can increase NAD+ biosynthesis in a way that naturally occurring NR cannot. Evaluating that position, the court said, required working through considerations beyond Myriad, including whether the claimed compositions have those characteristics and that utility, the amount of NR the claims require, and NR's role in increasing NAD+ biosynthesis (Op. 9-11).

The court concluded that, although ChromaDex's arguments did not prevail, its position was not so meritless or unreasonable as to make the case stand out from others. Because the district court legally erred in finding Myriad dispositive, it abused its discretion in granting the fee award. The court rejected Elysium's request for a remand, and reversed the award; its costs line reads "Costs to Appellant." (Op. 11-12 and n.5).