top of page


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 an affiliate marketer. 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. 


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

  • Writer's pictureShelly Albaum

Elysium's Reply Resisting Production of Alternative Source of Mystery NR


On October 25, ChromaDex moved to compel Elysium to produce a variety of documents.

On November 9, Magistrate Judge McCormick told the parties to try harder to work out their differences on the Discovery issues.

On December 1st, the parties revealed that they had resolved all of the Discovery issues except whether Elysium had to reveal its source of Mystery NR, and a briefing schedule was set for the remaining issue.

On December 4th, ChromaDex asserted five reasons why it needed information about the availability of Mystery NR in order to respond to Elysium's claims.

On December 8th, Elysium filed its reply brief, which you can read here:

In August 2017, ChromaDex (which had recently introduced its own product in competition with Elysium's product, Basis) submitted what Elysium contends to be a sham citizen petition to the FDA claiming the newly-sourced NR in Basis posed a danger to consumers because it purportedly contained trace amounts of a solvent. Elysium commenced litigation in the Southern District of New York on September 27, 2017, for this disparagement. On October 26, 2017, ChromaDex, represented by the same counsel as it is here, served Elysium with a complaint in the same court echoing its sham petition. Discovery has been stayed in both actions. [emphasis added]

Elysium’s pattern of behavior with respect to ChromaDex reflects a nefariously conceived plan to damage and/or steal ChromaDex’s NR, reputation, employees, goodwill, and stature in the industry, as well as its customer opportunities. Elysium’s marketing falsely “borrows” ChromaDex’s research and regulatory achievements to endorse Elysium’s new product, and Elysium has maliciously targeted ChromaDex, its employees, and its commercial relationships by disseminating falsehoods about ChromaDex and refusing to pay for large orders – all with the intent of undermining ChromaDex’s viability and ability to compete. On information and belief, Elysium falsely disseminated untrue information to investors about ChromaDex’s financial health to further interfere with ChromaDex’s ability to raise money and defend itself against Elysium’s multi-front litigation and deceptive advertising war. And, on further information and belief, Elysium and/or its agents are associated with or responsible for stock “short attacks” intended to drive the share value of ChromaDex down, making it a more accessible take-over target.

Substance of Elysium's Reply

1. ChromaDex Keeps Changing Its Story

This is just whining. There is no suggestion of a procedural violation or prejudice. Theories develop over time. In fact, I would think the most plausible scenario in typical litigation is that you make a request, and you don't bother to think of every probable legal justification until the request is denied and you are filing your brief in support of a motion to compel.

Legal bills would be worse than they are if attorneys had to present every request for production as a fully briefed motion to compel or suffer the kind of prejudice that Elysium is requesting here, and Skadden knows that. So I think Elysium's narrative here is not only whining, it is also disingenuous. We have already seen them argue in the New York litigation that private communications subsequently distributed both "are" and "are not" advertisements, depending mostly on which side of the claim they are on.

2. Market Power Matters Not After the Contract Was Signed

This seems to me wrong for two reasons.

First, if Elysium could just make and sell its own NR now, why couldn't it have done that earlier? Elysium's current behavior seems highly relevant to market power throughout the period.

Second, and more subtle, the ONLY remedy for Patent Misuse is to stop the Patent Misuse. So there is no way for Elysium to relegate the inquiry to past events.

By desperately keeping their Patent Misuse claim alive (despite its being mooted by ChromaDex's disclaiming damages and offering to deposit any funds owned to Elysium with the Court), Elysium has committed itself to the proposition that there is a continuing controversy involving an ongoing patent misuse that has not been purged, and by definition that means all the elements of the patent misuse.

It seems to me that if Elysium could easily source Mystery NR now, in a way that it could have easily done a few years ago, then ChromaDex never had market power and there was never a Patent Misuse, and there certainly isn't an ongoing patent misuse. So I don't see how Elysium gets to continue asserting a Patent Misuse claim but to deny discovery on the elements of patent misuse. [Note: I'm making this argument only in the context of the discovery dispute; in reality, there wasn't ever a patent misuse because ChromaDex never charged for its trademarks in the first place. Elysium has not once, to my knowledge, explained why ChromaDex would have done the nonsensical thing that Elysium says ChromaDex did, against all evidence.]

3. Prejudice Outweighs Relevance

I don't really know how to weigh this argument. The whole patent misuse claim is bogus, and ChromaDex doesn't need Discovery to assert a patent infringement claim -- it could just assert it based on its own lab analysis of Mystery NR. So how do you balance relevance to a bogus claim against the risk of inconsequential misuse? You got me.


I have been wrong more often than I have been right when I have tried to predict what the Central District of California will do. However, this motion is being heard by a new jurist (Hon. Douglas McCormick) and a new law clerk, so it is possible that this motion will be viewed through a different lens than we have seen.

A hearing is scheduled for first thing Wednesday morning December 13, so we'll know shortly.

218 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page