ChromaDex v. Elysium Health — Federal Circuit Erases $9.1 Million Patent-Fee Award

Background

ChromaDex and Dartmouth asserted patents covering dietary supplements containing isolated nicotinamide riboside, a form of vitamin B3 found naturally in cow’s milk. In an earlier appeal, the Federal Circuit held the asserted claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were directed to a natural product and did not require a composition meaningfully different from what occurs in nature.

After prevailing, Elysium sought attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Delaware district court viewed the Supreme Court’s Myriad decision as directly foreclosing ChromaDex’s eligibility theory and found the case exceptional. It awarded Elysium approximately $9.1 million. ChromaDex appealed only that fee ruling, not the earlier judgment invalidating its claims.

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit reversed. A losing patent argument does not automatically make a case exceptional, and the district court placed too much weight on Myriad. ChromaDex’s position required analysis beyond the simple proposition that naturally occurring material cannot be patented merely because it has been isolated.

ChromaDex had argued that its claimed supplements possessed markedly different characteristics and significant utility because concentrated nicotinamide riboside could increase NAD+ biosynthesis in ways trace, naturally occurring amounts could not. The court had rejected that theory in the first appeal, in part because the claims did not require a particular quantity or attribute the claimed biological effect to isolated nicotinamide riboside. Still, resolving those points required a fact-sensitive comparison of the claims, specification, and precedent. That made the eligibility position unsuccessful but not so meritless or unreasonable that the case stood out from ordinary patent litigation.

Because the district court’s legal error infected its exceptionality analysis and the developed record could not support the award on another ground, the panel reversed outright rather than remanding.

Key Takeaways

• Invalidity under § 101 does not by itself justify attorney fees under § 285.
• A position may be wrong yet still reasonable when applying natural-product precedent requires additional claim-specific analysis.
• Courts assessing exceptionality must evaluate the actual strength of the losing party’s arguments, not treat a leading precedent as automatically dispositive.

Why It Matters

The decision separates the merits of patent eligibility from the more demanding question whether a party litigated an exceptional case. For life-sciences patent owners, it preserves room to make good-faith arguments about concentration, utility, and markedly different characteristics without necessarily risking a fee award if those arguments fail. For prevailing defendants, it confirms that a large § 285 award needs more than a clear win on eligibility.