Supplement Maker's $9.1 Million Attorneys' Fee Award Completely Reversed by Federal Circuit
On October 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a $9.1 million attorneys' fee award that a Delaware district court had ordered dietary supplement maker ChromaDex, Inc. and the Trustees of Dartmouth College to pay ChromaDex's competitor, Elysium Health, Inc. For supplement, nutraceutical and biotech companies, the ruling means that losing a "product of nature" patent eligibility fight does not automatically make a case so "exceptional" that the loser must pay attorneys' fees.
WHAT THE COURT HELD
ChromaDex's patents covered supplements containing isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR), a form of vitamin B3 found in trace amounts in cow's milk. ChromaDex's patent claims were held ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at summary judgment because they were directed to products of nature. After the claims were invalidated and the Federal Circuit affirmed, the district court ordered ChromaDex to pay Elysium's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, reasoning that the 2013 U. S. Supreme Court's decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (holding that simply isolating a natural substance is not patentable) made ChromaDex's position "so lacking in substance" that it was exceptional. The $9.1 million award reflected Elysium's fees and costs over five years of litigation—from the 2018 complaint through claim construction, discovery, expert reports, summary judgment, pretrial preparation, and the fee motion itself. But the Federal Circuit reversed the entirety of this award on two main grounds:
- A losing argument is not an exceptional one. Fees are reserved for positions that are exceptionally meritless, not merely incorrect. The Federal Circuit held that ChromaDex's positions were not exceptionally meritless because ChromaDex argued that its isolated NR could boost a key cellular coenzyme (NAD+) in a way the NR in milk cannot, and the court had to weigh several additional factors, not implicated in Myriad, in rejecting that argument, including whether the claims required a specific quantity of NR and whether the claimed increase in NAD + biosynthesis was attributable to the isolated NR. In other words, there was more to ChromaDex's argument than just Myriad.
- Elysium's fee case rested on a single theory. Because Elysium's entire fee argument hinged on the premise that ChromaDex litigated the case "as if the Myriad case did not exist,"—which the Federal Circuit fundamentally disagreed with—there was no other position to support the fee award, and it was wiped out completely.
WHY THIS MATTERS
The Federal Circuit’s rationale in this case makes attorneys’ fee awards harder to obtain for accused infringers who win on eligibility alone, particularly in industries that deal with supplements, nutraceuticals, diagnostics, and biologic products.
WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
- Accused Infringers: Winning does not guarantee fees, so build a record early. This may be done through detailed letters explaining why each of the patent owner's theories fails, as opposed to taking a hard stance on a single issue.
- Patent Owners: When confronted with ineligibility challenges, build out a robust factual record and legal argument section that addresses the issues head-on in a manner that avoids reliance on a single theory.
For more information on patent litigation and fee-shifting strategy, please contact Chris Clayton, Austin Diehl or the Stinson LLP contact with whom you regularly work.
