On 30 October 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ChromaDex fee award that had ordered ChromaDex to pay Elysium Health USD 9.15 million in legal fees. The court held that ChromaDex’s eligibility position on a natural product, although unsuccessful, was reasonably argued.
The ruling matters to owners of patents on purified natural compounds, because it separates the risk of losing a patent from the risk of paying the other side’s costs.
What happened
ChromaDex sued Elysium in 2018 over US Patent No. 8,197,807, which it licenses from Dartmouth. The claims cover oral compositions containing isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR), a form of vitamin B3, that raise levels of the coenzyme nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+). NR occurs naturally in cow’s milk, but only in trace amounts that the body cannot use.
The District of Delaware held the claims ineligible under section 101 of the US Patent Act as a product of nature, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in 2023. Elysium then sought its legal fees under section 285, which allows fees in “exceptional” cases. In 2024 the district court found the case exceptional. It reasoned that the Supreme Court’s 2013 Myriad decision had settled the issue and that ChromaDex had not tried to distinguish it. It awarded USD 9,151,133.
In a nonprecedential opinion by Judge Chen, joined by Judges Prost and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed. It said the district court had wrongly treated Myriad as “the beginning and the end of the patent-eligibility analysis”. ChromaDex had argued, with expert evidence, that its compositions differed markedly from milk. It relied on Natural Alternatives v Creative Compounds (2019), which upheld dose-specific supplement claims at the pleading stage.
Rejecting that argument required weighing several factors, including the amount of NR claimed and its role in raising NAD+. Because the question needed that analysis, the court found nothing in the strength of ChromaDex’s position that set the case apart. It refused to send the case back for a second attempt and ordered costs to ChromaDex.
A pattern in recent fee rulings
The decision follows mCom IP v City National Bank of Florida, a precedential ruling of 15 May 2026. After an inter partes review held most claims of a banking software patent unpatentable, mCom sued on the four claims the review had not challenged. The district court dismissed them as obvious and inadequately pleaded. The court had awarded USD 33,986.43 against mCom and a USD 50,619.59 sanction against its counsel. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal but reversed both awards, finding no adequate basis beyond the invalidity ruling itself and no bad faith by counsel.
EscapeX IP v Google, decided on 25 November 2025, shows where the line sits. The district court found that EscapeX had not carried out an adequate pre-suit investigation and had disregarded warnings from Google, including after its patent was held ineligible in another case. It awarded Google USD 191,302.18, plus USD 63,525.30 for a post-judgment motion it found frivolous. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
Read together, the three cases put the focus on the strength of the patent owner’s position and on its pre-suit investigation and conduct.
The wider picture in life sciences eligibility
The fee ruling sits on top of a substantive loss. In ChromaDex v Elysium, decided on 13 February 2023, the claims failed partly because they required no minimum quantity of NR and did not attribute the NAD+ increase to it. The construction of “isolated” also did not require the NR to be bioavailable.
On 20 February 2026, in REGENXBIO v Sarepta Therapeutics, the court reversed a Delaware ineligibility ruling on gene therapy claims. The claims covered cultured host cells containing a recombinant nucleic acid that joins an adeno-associated virus (AAV) capsid sequence with a heterologous, non-AAV sequence. Because that combination does not exist in nature, the claims were not directed to a natural phenomenon.
The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025, introduced on 1 May 2025, would no longer exclude natural material that has been isolated, purified or otherwise altered by human activity. Supporters seek broader protection for diagnostics and biotechnology, while others are concerned about patents on natural substances and research tools. A Senate subcommittee held a hearing in October 2025, and the bill has not been enacted.
What it means for life sciences patent owners
For owners of natural product, nutraceutical and biologic patents, the message has two parts.
- Fee risk appears lower than the Delaware award suggested, where the eligibility position is reasoned and backed by evidence, although the ruling is nonprecedential.
- Patent risk is unchanged. Claims that recite a dose, tie the effect to the purified component and define its form may avoid the 2023 gaps, and REGENXBIO suggests engineered combinations can fare better.
Testing such patents against the prior art and the eligibility case law before assertion reduces both risks. A documented invalidity search helps a litigation team weigh its own patent’s weaknesses before filing. It also creates a record of pre-suit diligence, a factor the court weighed in EscapeX.
Synoptic IP’s view
Synoptic IP’s view is that this ruling is a sound correction that patent owners should read as a drafting lesson more than a litigation comfort. The reasons follow from the cases. The 2023 loss turned largely on what the claims left out, such as a minimum amount and a causal link. REGENXBIO shows that claims tied to a non-natural combination can survive. mCom and EscapeX show that courts weigh the strength of a position, diligence and conduct, not merely the outcome.
The strongest counter-argument is that the opinion is nonprecedential and reviews a discretionary decision. District judges keep wide latitude under Section 285. Defendants may also say that reversals of this kind make speculative suits cheaper to bring. That concern is real, but EscapeX shows that fees remain available where a court finds pre-suit investigation inadequate or warnings disregarded.
The view may not hold if Congress enacts eligibility reform, which would change the substantive question rather than the fee question.
Synoptic IP supports patent owners and their counsel with patent invalidity searches before assertion and patent drafting that builds eligibility support into the claims. Contact our team to discuss a natural product or biologics portfolio.
This article is commentary and opinion based on court opinions and public records as of 6 November 2026 and is not legal advice.
Filed under