Your single source for the ChromaDex v. Elysium Court Filings
ChromaDex versus Elysium Documents
Thorne IPR Documents
California Pretrial Documents
Summary Judgment and Evidentiary Motions in Delaware:
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.
ChromaDex's Motion to Dismiss
Elysium's Motion to Dismiss
Motions to Dismiss Patent Misuse Claim
Motion to Dismiss 5th Amended Complaint
Motion to Compel Discovery #1
Motion to Compel Discovery #2
Discovery Dispute #3 Clawback Motion
Discovery Dispute #4 -- The Block Communications
Discovery Dispute #5 -- The Slack Messages
Discovery Dispute #6 -- Interrogatories and Documents
NEW: Discovery Dispute #7 -- Work Product Shared with Accountants
NEW: Discovery Dispute #8 -- Use of Materials in SDNY
Motion to Amend Pleadings
Summary Judgment Supplemental Briefing
Evidentiary Motions (Motions in Limine)
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:
Motion to Stay
Lift Stay Motion
Elysium's Request to Delay Scheduling Conference
Covance Breach of Contract Case:
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.
ChromaDex's Motion to Dismiss
Converted Motion for Summary Judgment on Noerr-Pennington
Elysium's Motion to Dismiss
Letters re: FDA Proceeding
CDXC's Motion to File First Amended Complaint
Elysium's's Motion to File 2nd Amended Counterclaims
Utah (Novex False Advertising Lawsuit)
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 insist that all my friends and family over 50 take Tru Niagen.
ABOUT RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY
Right of Assembly is my personal blog. All opinions are my own. You can read more about me here.
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.
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
Preliminary Documents - '086
Appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
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.