Losing a § 101 Fight Is Not “Exceptional”: Federal Circuit Reverses $9.15 Million Fee Award in ChromaDex v. Elysium Health
November 3, 2026 | Firm NewsOn October 30, 2026, the Federal Circuit reversed a $9,151,133 attorneys’ fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it treated the Supreme Court’s Myriad decision as having foreclosed the patentee’s eligibility position from the start. ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., No. 2025-1227 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2026) (nonprecedential).
Background
ChromaDex and the Trustees of Dartmouth College own U.S. Patent Nos. 8,197,807 and 8,383,086, directed to dietary supplement compositions containing isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR), a form of vitamin B3. NR occurs naturally in cow’s milk, but only in trace amounts, bound to whey protein and not bioavailable. In 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that the asserted claims are patent-ineligible under § 101 as directed to a product of nature. ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., 59 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Elysium then moved for fees under § 285. The district court (Chief Judge Connolly, D. Del.) found the case exceptional: in its view, Myriad “addressed the specific issue presented,” ChromaDex’s summary judgment briefing “mentioned Myriad just once” and made no attempt to distinguish it, and ChromaDex’s position “stood out” from the dozens of other § 101 challenges the court had seen. It awarded Elysium $9,151,133, including roughly $3.9 million in fees incurred before the Markman hearing.
The Reversal
The Federal Circuit (Prost, Chen, and Stoll, Circuit Judges; opinion by Judge Chen) held that it was “legal error to treat Myriad as the beginning and the end of the patent-eligibility analysis.” Myriad answered one question — that merely isolating a naturally occurring molecule, without more, does not confer eligibility. But ChromaDex’s principal argument went further: under Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, 918 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2019), it contended that its compositions had markedly different characteristics and significant utility over milk, because isolated NR can increase NAD+ biosynthesis in a way naturally occurring NR cannot — an argument backed by expert testimony. Evaluating that position required several considerations beyond Myriad, and the Federal Circuit’s own 2023 decision had worked through them at length before rejecting the argument.
Under Octane Fitness, a case is exceptional when it “stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position,” and a position need not be correct to be reasonable — it must be “exceptionally meritless” to support a fee award. Because ChromaDex’s position rested on a genuine, precedent-based argument, it was not exceptionally meritless, and the district court’s contrary legal premise was an abuse of discretion. The court also refused Elysium’s request for a remand: neither the district court’s analysis nor the record could support an exceptionality finding, and fee disputes should not become “a second major litigation.”
What It Means
- Losing is not standing out. A patentee who loses a hard-fought § 101 motion does not face fee exposure merely because a prominent precedent pointed the other way. The court must assess the position actually advanced.
- Anchoring matters. ChromaDex’s argument survived fee review because it was built on on-point Federal Circuit precedent (Natural Alternatives) and expert support — not on ignoring Myriad.
- Fee motions get one fair shot. By reversing outright rather than remanding, the court signaled that exceptionality cannot be rebuilt on a second record — a meaningful check on fee-driven satellite litigation.
The full opinion is available from the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1227.OPINION.10-30-2026_2779593.pdf