Litigation Documents

Your single source for the ChromaDex v. Elysium Court Filings

ChromaDex and Elysium are locked in an epic battle for control over part of the anti-aging industry -- the market for NAD precursors.  Right now, Nicotinamide Riboside (NR) appears to be the best method of replenishing cellular NAD.

Dr. Charles Brenner discovered NR's potential to improve health by replenishing NAD, and Dartmouth College owns the patent on Dr. Brenner's invention. Dartmouth licensed its NR patents to ChromaDex, and ChromaDex supplied the ingredients for Elysium's Basis.

Then all hell broke loose when Elysium placed giant orders, stopped paying its bills, hired away two of ChromaDex's key employees, set up its own alternate supply chain, and sued to have the Dartmouth patents invalidated.

ChromaDex has sued Elysium for breach of contract, unfair competition, false advertising, trade secret theft, and patent infringement.

 

Elysium has sued ChromaDex for breach of contract, unfair competition, false advertising, and patent misuse.

There are four active legal proceedings -- before the USPTO (now on appeal to the CAFC), and in federal courts in California, Delaware, and New York.

Below are  the key court documents for all four proceedings, and you can read about the attorneys, and we also have a comprehensive summary of the ChromaDex-Elysium LItigation.

 

CALIFORNIA (USDC CDCal, Judge Cormac Carney)

California was the first forum for this litigation. The trial scheduled for October 29, then October 15, then October 22, was postponed pending supplemental briefing by the partieson motions for summary judgment, which should be ruled on by January 13, 2020, after which the Court will consider motions in limine and set a trial date. More details here.

Underlying Contracts

Niagen Supply Agreement

Pterostilbene Agreement Part 1

Pterostilbene Agreement Part 2

Trademark License and Royalty Agreement

 

Pleadings

CDXC's 4th Amended Complaint

Elysium's Third Amended Counterclaims

Elysium's Answer

ChromaDex's Answer

Elysium's Answer to the 4AC

CDXC Answer to 4th Counterclaims

CDXC Motion to File 5AC

Operative Fifth Amended Complaint

Order Granting Motion to File 5AC

Elysium's Answer to 5th Amended Complaint

CDXC's Answer to Restated Counterclaims

ChromaDex's Motion to Dismiss

ChromaDex' Brief

Elysium's Opposition

ChromaDex's Reply

DECISION on Cross-Motions

Elysium's Motion to Dismiss

Elysium's Brief

ChromaDex's Opposition

Elysium's Reply

DECISION on Cross-Motions

Motions to Dismiss Patent Misuse Claim

Round 1

ChromaDex's Motion

Elysium's Opposition

ChromaDex's Reply

Order Denying w/o Prejudice

 

Round 2 

ChromaDex's Motion

Elysium's Opposition

ChromaDex's Reply

ORDER Denying Motion

 

Round 3

Motion to Dismiss the FAC

CDXC Opposition Brief

Elysium's Reply Brief

ORDER Granting & Denying 4AC

Motion to Dismiss 5th Amended Complaint

Elysium's Opening Brief

ChromaDex's Opposition Brief

Elysium's Reply Brief

 Order DENYING Motion to Dismiss

 

Motion to Compel Discovery #1

Joint Stipulation

Magistrate's Initial Response

ChromaDex's Brief

Elysium's Opposition

DECISION Granting Motion 

Motion to Compel Discovery #2

Joint Stipulation and Argument

ChromaDex's Supplemental Brief

Elysium's Supplemental Brief

Transcript of Hearing

Joint Stipulation Regarding Partial Resolution

Order resolving disputed items

Discovery Dispute #3 Clawback Motion

Elysium's Ex Parte Application

ChromaDex's Opposition

Elysium's Reply

Order Denying Elysium's Application

Discovery Dispute #4 -- The Block Communications

Joint Stipulation

Proposed Protective Order

Discovery Dispute #5 -- The Slack Messages

Transcript of Hearing

Magistrate Judge's Order

Discovery Dispute #6 -- Interrogatories and Documents

Magistrate Judge's First Order

NEW: Discovery Dispute #7  -- Work Product Shared with Accountants

Minutes of December 6 Meeting

Magistrate's Order

NEW: Discovery Dispute #8  -- Use of Materials in SDNY

Second Amended Protective Order

Elysium's Request to Review Magistrate's Order

Discovery Documents

ChromaDex's General Catalyst Subpoena

Motion to Amend Pleadings

Elysium's Brief

ChromaDex's Opposition

Elysium's Reply

ORDER Granting Leave to Amend

Administrative Orders

Amended Scheduling Order

Joint Stipulation to Amend Complaint and Scheduling Order

Minute Order Approving Joint Stipulation

Proposed Scheduling Order (6/29/2018)

Second Amended Scheduling Order (7/23/2018)

Third Amended Scheduling Order (11/16/2018)

Joint Stipulation on 5AC MTD Briefing

Order approving Proposed Schedule

First Amended Joint Stipulated Protective Order

Proposal to Delay Trial to October 2019

4th Amended Scheduling Order

Order Advancing Trial to October 15

Guidelines for Settlement Conference

 

Mediation

Joint Stipulation

Mediator Assigned

Summary Judgment

ChromaDex's Motion for Additional Pages

Elysium's Motion for Special Sealing Process

Order Denying Both Motions

ChromaDex's Summary Judgment Motion

Elysium's Summary Judgment Motion

150+ Exhibits for both Motions

Summary Judgment Supplemental Briefing

Court's Request for Supplemental Briefing

CDXC Request to Modify Briefing Schedule

Elysium's Opposition to Modify

Elysium's Opening Supplemental Brief

CDXC Opposition Supplemental Brief

Elysium's Reply Supplemental Brief

 

Evidentiary Motions (Motions in Limine)

CDXC - Exclusion of Cockburn Testimony

CDXC - Exclusion of Three Things

Elysium - Exclusion of Gunderson Testimony

Elysium - Exclusion of Kagel Testimony

Elysium - Exclusion of Personal Conduct Evidence

Supporting Exhibits for all motions

Delaware (USDC D.Del., Judge Colm Connolly)

Delaware is the forum for ChromaDex's patent infringement claims. Elysium has filed a motion to stay the matter, which is fully briefed, and ChromaDex has requested oral argument.  There has been no scheduling conference. Now that the PTAB has issued its ruling, but the court has put the case on hold until after one of the California claims is resolved. After the California trial was delayed, ChromaDex moved to lift the stay. That motion has been fully briefed and is pending before the Court. More details here.

In a completely separate action in Delaware, Covance, which purchased ChromaDex's testing business for $7.5M, claims that ChromaDex should have delivered its ComplyID library as part of the deal. The matter settled on November 13, 2019.

Elysium Patent Infringement Case:

 

Pleadings

ChromaDex's Complaint

Exhibits to Complaint

Elysium's Answer

Elysium's First Amended Answer

 

Motion to Stay

Elysium's Opening Brief

ChromaDex's Opposition Brief

Elysium's Reply Brief

ChromaDex's Request Based on the PTAB Decision

Elysium's Letter Based on the PTAB Decision

Order Partially Granting Stay Motion

 

Lift Stay Motion

CDXC Opening Brief

Elysium's Opposition Brief

CDXC Reply Brief

Scheduling

Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

Scheduling Conference Set

Elysium's Request to Delay Scheduling Conference

Second Scheduling Conference Set

Proposed Scheduling Order

 

Covance Breach of Contract Case:

 

Pleadings

Covance's Complaint

ChromaDex's Answer

Schedule

Approved Scheduling Order

NEW: Interim Report (SEP 2019)

 

New York (USDC SDNY, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon )

The New  York litigation began when Elysium sued ChromaDex for filing a citizen petition asking the FDA to stop Elysium's sale of adulterated health supplements.  ChromaDex then sued Elysium back alleging that Elysium was founded with the express purpose of wresting control of NR from ChromaDex and executing a "nefarious plan" to damage or destroy ChromaDex. The two lawsuits were consolidated by Judge Valerie Caproni and then transferred to Judge McMahon. ChromaDex's claims mostly survived Elysium's motion to dismiss, but Judge McMahon dismissed Elysium's claims on the ground that ChromaDex's FDA petition was protected by the First Amendment, and denied Elysium's motion to reconsider that ruling., However, Elysium also has a large number of new counterclaims unrelated to the FDA petition, and ChromaDex has filed an amended complaint that adds new claims and significantly strengthens its case for false advertising and unfair competition. Discovery was underway, and a jury trial was expected in summer, 2020, but the Court stayed the case for six months while counsel prepared for trial in California. The Court also warned that no further delays would be allowed. More details here.

Pleadings

CDXC's  Complaint

Elysium's Complaint

Elysium's Answer and Counterclaims

ChromaDex's Answer

CDXC's Proposed First Amended Complaint

    *  Exhibit AA (Nutritional Outlook Article)

    * Exhibit BB (Elysium Study re: LDL-C)

Elysium's Answer to FAC and Counterclaims

ChromaDex's Objection and Answer to Counterclaims

Elysium's Proposed 2nd Amended Counterclaims

ChromaDex's Answer to 2nd Amended Counterclaims

ChromaDex's Motion to Dismiss

ChromaDex' Brief

Elysium's Opposition

ChromaDex's Reply

First Order -- Granting and Denying in Part

Decision Granting CDXC's Motion to Dismiss

Converted Motion for Summary Judgment on Noerr-Pennington

ChromaDex's Brief

Elysium's Brief

ChromaDex's Proposal to File Additional Evidence

ChromaDex's 300+ Pages of Additional Evidence

Elysium's Objection to ChromaDex's Additional Evidence

Order Allowing Additional Evidence

Decision Granting CDXC's Motion to Dismiss

Elysium's Motion for Reconsideration

Order DENYING Elysium's Motion for Reconsideration

Elysium's Motion to Dismiss

Elysium's Brief

ChromaDex's Opposition

Elysium's Reply

First Order -- Granting and Denying in Part

Letters re: FDA Proceeding

ChromaDex's Supplemental Letter

Elysium's Reply Letter

CDXC's Motion to File First Amended Complaint

ChromaDex's Brief in Support

Elysium's Declaration of No Objection to Amending

Order Granting Motion to Amend

Scheduling Orders

ORDER Consolidating the Cases

Substitution of Judges

Joint Letter on SJ Evidence

Court's approval of Elysium's Late Brief

Parties' Joint Summary of the CA Litigation

Elysium's's Motion to File 2nd Amended Counterclaims

Elysium's Brief in Support

Utah (Novex False Advertising Lawsuit)

Novex's Complaint

ChromaDex's Answer and Counterclaims

Novex's Motion to Dismiss

ChromaDex's Opposition Brief

Novex's Reply Brief

Proposed Discovery Plan

Scheduling Order

DISCLAIMER: I am a ChromaDex shareholder and a former customer of Elysium Health.  I have no official role with either company.

I wrote here why I don't like Elysium.

I wrote here why insist that all my friends and family over 50 take Tru Niagen.

Here is a chart that compares Elysium Basis with Tru Niagen

Here is a summary of the OTHER NAD precursors

And here is one simple reason to avoid Elysium Basis

ABOUT RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY

Right of Assembly is my personal blog. All opinions are my own. You can read more about me here.

DISCLOSURE

I am a ChromaDex shareholder, and a marketing affiliate for Amazon and CJ.com. As a result, I will sometimes mention or recommend products that I endorse. I may earn a small commission from qualifying purchases if you were referred directly from this site and completed a purchase. [Thank you!] You can read more about our advertising, privacy, and data collection policies here. 

Cookies

This site uses cookies. Cookies are not required for site functionality. You can read more about how to opt-out of cookies here.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

Elysium filed Inter Partes Review petitions challenging the validity of two of ChromaDex's patents, the '086 Pharmaceutical Patent, and the '807 Health Supplement Patent. The PTAB rejected Elysium's challenge to the '807 Patent, but initiated an IPR to review whether the '086 Patent was invalid because it was anticipated by milk and buttermilk as prior art. Oral Argument in the IPR was held on October 2, 2018, and on January 16, 2019, the PTAB ruled that Claim 2 was upheld, and Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 were invalid as anticipated by prior art. Both sides have appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and the matter is fully briefed. Oral argument is expected in the first half of 2020. More details here.

Preliminary Documents - '807

'807 Patent

Elysium's Petition

ChromaDex's Preliminary Response

PTAB's ORDER Denying IPR

Preliminary Documents - '086

'086 Patent

Elysium's Petition

ChromaDex's Preliminary Response

PTAB's ORDER Granting IPR in part

ChromaDex's Final Response

Elysium's Reply to Final Response

Discovery Phase 

Objections to Elysium's Exhibits

Declaration of Joe Baur

Deposition of Joe Baur

Declaration of Sunny Zhou

Deposition of Sunny Zhou

Trial

Transcript of Oral Arguments

Final Decision

Scheduling Orders

Initial Scheduling Order

Joint Stipulation Adding Two Weeks

2nd Revised Scheduling Order

PTAB Order adding Claim 2

ChromaDex's Motion for Rehearing

Elysium's Opposition to Rehearing

Elysium's Request for Oral Argument

CDXC's Request for Oral Argument

Denial of Motion for Rehearing

Order Granting Oral Argument

Appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Elysium's Notice of Appeal

ChromaDex's Notice of Cross-Appeal

Elysium's Appellate Brief

NEW: ChromaDex's Requests Extension of Time

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

ChromaDex filed a citizen petition with the FDA complaining that Elysium's Basis was adulterated with toluene and that it lacked the necessary approvals as GRAS and/or an NDIN. More than a year later the FDA has not responded, and it's not clear whether it ever will. Whether the FDA is capable of acting on the petition was one issue in the New York litigation, before the Court granted summary judgment in favor of ChromaDex on those claims.

Citizens Petition

ChromaDex's Petition

Elysium's Comment

ChromaDex's Supplemental Petition

Elysium's Additional Comment

FDA's Interim Response