Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Chromadex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc.

Representative Claim(s)

Claims 1, 2, and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,197,807

  1. A composition comprising isolated nicotinamide riboside in combination with one or more of tryptophan, nicotinic 60 acid, or nicotinamide, wherein said combination is in admixture with a carrier comprising a sugar, starch, cellulose, powdered tragacanth, malt, gelatin, talc, cocoa butter, suppository wax, oil, glycol, polyol, ester, agar, buffering agent, alginic acid, isotonic saline, Ringer’s solution, ethyl alcohol, poly – 65 ester, polycarbonate, or polyanhydride, wherein said composition is formulated for oral administration and increases NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration.
  2. The composition of claim 1, wherein the nicotinamide riboside is isolated from a natural or synthetic source.
  3. The composition of claim 1, wherein the formulation comprises a tablet, troche, capsule, elixir, suspension, syrup, wafer, chewing gum, or food.

Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,383,086

  1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising nicotinamide riboside in admixture with a carrier, wherein said composition is formulated for oral administration.
  2. The pharmaceutical composition of claim 1, wherein the nicotinamide riboside is isolated from a natural or synthetic source.

Posture:

Motion for Summary Judgment

Exception Categories: Law of Nature, Natural Phenomenon

I decline to import details not claimed and find that the asserted claims are directed to a natural product.”

“[T]he decision to create an oral formulation of NR after discovering that NR is orally bioavailable is simply applying a patent-ineligible law of nature.”

Significantly More: No

“ChromaDex disagrees and cites the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rapid Litigation Management, Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042,1050-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016) for the proposition that ‘a claim that ‘applies the discovery’ to achieve something new and useful suffices to provide an inventive concept.’ D.I. 278 at 10 (citing CellzDirect, 827 F.3d at 1050-51). But the Court in CellzDirect stressed that the patent-eligible asserted claims at issue in that case were ‘directed to a new and useful method,’ as opposed to a product claim. 827 F.3d at 1048-49 (noting that the asserted claims ‘are like thousands of others that recite processes to achieve a desired outcome, e.g., methods of producing things or, methods of treating diseases’) (emphasis added)); id at 1049 (stating ‘the claims are directed to a new and useful process of creating [the] pool [of cells], not to the pool [of cells] itself’); id. at 1049 (stating that the method claims before it were ‘distinguishable from [the composition claims] held unpatentable in Myriad’). The asserted claims here are composition claims, and thus they are governed by Myriad. See Myriad, 569 U.S. at 595 (noting that the claims the Court found to be patent-ineligible were not method claims purporting to create an inventive method of manipulating genes).”