Federal Circuit Reverses $9.1 Million Attorney Fee Award Against ChromaDex in Nicotinamide Riboside Patent Case.

The appeal

The case is ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., No. 2025-1227 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2026) (nonprecedential), an appeal from No. 1:18-cv-01434-CFC-JLH in the District of Delaware, Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly. The court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1).

The patents and the earlier rulings

The opinion describes U.S. Patents 8,197,807 and 8,383,086 as owned by ChromaDex, Inc. and the Trustees of Dartmouth College, which it calls ChromaDex collectively. Claim 1 of the '807 patent, which the court treated as representative, recites a composition comprising isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR) in combination with one or more of tryptophan, nicotinic acid, or nicotinamide, in admixture with a listed carrier, formulated for oral administration, and that "increases NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration." The opinion explains that NR occurs in cow's milk only in trace amounts that are not bioavailable.

In July 2017, Elysium petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1-3 of the '807 patent, and in January 2018 the Board denied institution, finding that milk does not anticipate because the NR in milk is not "isolated" under the Board's construction requiring at least about 25% purity by weight. ChromaDex sued Elysium in September 2018 on claims 1-3 of the '807 patent and claim 2 of the '086 patent. The district court construed "isolated [NR]" without a purity requirement and granted Elysium summary judgment that the asserted claims are directed to a product of nature and ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. In 2023, in ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., 59 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed as to claims 1-3 of the '807 patent.

The fee award

Elysium then moved for fees, arguing that ChromaDex litigated "as if the Myriad case did not exist." The district court found the case exceptional, reasoning that Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), "addressed the specific issue presented" and that ChromaDex "made no attempt to distinguish Myriad in its summary judgment briefing." In an August 20, 2024 fee order, it awarded Elysium $9,151,133, over ChromaDex's objection to including about $3.9 million incurred before the Markman hearing.

Why the court reversed

Applying Octane Fitness and Highmark, the court explained that an exceptionality finding turns on the substantive strength of a party's position, not its correctness, and that the position must be "exceptionally meritless." It held that "it was legal error to treat Myriad as the beginning and the end of the patent-eligibility analysis for ChromaDex's claims." Had ChromaDex relied only on the structural fact that its NR is isolated, that argument would have closely resembled the one rejected in Myriad. But ChromaDex argued, relying on Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, that its compositions have markedly different characteristics and significant utility because isolated NR can increase NAD+ biosynthesis in a way naturally occurring NR cannot. The court noted that resolving that argument in the 2023 appeal required weighing the claimed amount of NR, whether the claims attribute the increase to the isolated NR, whether the claimed NR must be bioavailable under the district court's construction, and the fact that milk increases NAD+ biosynthesis through tryptophan. "Thus, we do not view this case as open and shut in light of Myriad," the court wrote, concluding that ChromaDex's position was not so meritless or unreasonable as to make the case stand out.

No remand

The court rejected Elysium's invitation to remand, concluding that neither the district court's analysis nor the record and argument Elysium presented could support an exceptionality finding, and quoting mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, 175 F.4th 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2026), which in turn quoted Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011), for the principle that a fee determination "should not result in a second major litigation." It reversed the section 285 award and awarded costs to the appellants.

What to watch next

Watch for any petition for rehearing and for the Federal Circuit's mandate. In December 2024, after ChromaDex and Dartmouth appealed, the district court approved a bond and stayed enforcement of the fee award pending the appeal.