The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed a previous ruling that awarded Elysium Health, Inc. $9.1 million in attorney fees from ChromaDex, Inc. This decision, made on October 30, 2026, affects the ongoing legal landscape surrounding patent eligibility, particularly for dietary supplements. The ruling is significant for companies involved in patent disputes, as it clarifies the standards for determining when a case is considered exceptional enough to warrant attorney fees.

The case, known as Chromadex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc. (Docket No. 25-1227), originated from a dispute over patents related to dietary supplements that include isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR), a compound derived from vitamin B3. The ruling has implications for how patent claims are evaluated in relation to natural products and could influence future patent applications in similar fields.

Background

ChromaDex, Inc. and the Trustees of Dartmouth College are the plaintiffs in this case, holding patents that claim dietary supplements designed to enhance NAD+ biosynthesis, which is essential for cellular metabolism. The specific patents in question are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,197,807 and 8,383,086. The dispute began when Elysium Health filed a petition in 2017 challenging the validity of ChromaDex's patents, arguing that the claims were not patent eligible because they involved products of nature, specifically components found in milk.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board initially ruled in favor of ChromaDex, stating that the NR in milk did not meet the criteria for being considered 'isolated' as defined in the patents. However, in 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision that the claims were indeed directed to a product of nature, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. This ruling led Elysium to seek attorney fees, claiming that the case was exceptional due to ChromaDex's failure to adequately argue its position against the Myriad decision.

The Ruling

The Federal Circuit, in its recent ruling, disagreed with the lower court's assessment that ChromaDex's arguments were without merit. The court found that the district court had erred in its interpretation of the case, stating, "The district court abused its discretion in granting the § 285 fee award." The judges emphasized that the patent-eligibility question required a more nuanced evaluation than simply applying the Myriad decision.

The court noted that ChromaDex's claims involved considerations beyond the Myriad case, particularly regarding the unique characteristics and potential utility of the isolated NR in their dietary supplements. The judges concluded that the substantive strength of ChromaDex's position was not so exceptionally meritless as to warrant the attorney fee award, thereby reversing the decision.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the future of patent eligibility, particularly in the field of dietary supplements and natural products. By reversing the fee award, the Federal Circuit has provided clarity on how courts should evaluate cases involving claims that may relate to natural products. This decision may encourage companies to pursue patent claims related to natural substances, knowing that they may have a reasonable chance of success even when similar cases have been previously ruled against.

The ruling also serves as a reminder that the determination of whether a case is exceptional enough for attorney fees requires careful consideration of the substantive strength of a party's position, rather than a blanket application of precedent. This could lead to more nuanced arguments in future patent disputes, as companies will need to demonstrate the unique aspects of their claims in light of existing legal standards.

What's Next

ChromaDex has successfully reversed the attorney fee award, but the case may still have lingering effects on its business operations and patent strategies. It remains to be seen if Elysium will seek further legal avenues or if there are related cases pending that could influence the outcome of future patent eligibility disputes.