ChromaDex & Dartmouth v. Thorne Research: NR Patent Claims Dismissed as Moot
ChromaDex and Dartmouth filed suit against Thorne Research alleging willful infringement of two nicotinamide riboside (NR) patents covering products including NIAGEN® and TRU NIAGEN®. After 967 days, the case collapsed as moot when the Federal Circuit affirmed patent-ineligibility of the asserted claims in a parallel proceeding against Elysium Health.
NR Patent Enforcement Unravels as Federal Circuit Kills Underlying Claims
In May 2021, ChromaDex, Inc. and the Trustees of Dartmouth College filed a patent infringement complaint in the Southern District of New York against Thorne Research, Inc., asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 8,197,807 and 8,383,086. Both patents relate to isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR), a proprietary form of vitamin B3 at the heart of the booming NAD+ supplement market. The accused products included NIAGEN®, TRU NIAGEN®, ResveraCel®, and NiaCel® 200 and 400.
The case came to an end on January 4, 2024, via a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own legal costs. The dismissal was driven by a decisive external event: the Federal Circuit’s ruling in ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., 59 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2023), which affirmed the patent-ineligibility of the asserted claims. With the patents invalidated in a parallel matter, continued litigation against Thorne became legally untenable.
The 967-day duration reflects the complexity of parallel IPR proceedings before the PTAB, a moot Federal Circuit appeal, and the downstream effect of the Elysium Health ruling. Notably, the PTAB had initially found claims 1–3 of the ‘807 patent not unpatentable in August 2022, but that decision was subsequently vacated by the Federal Circuit as moot. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, leaving the precise preclusive effect technically ambiguous.
Filing to resolution in 967 days
967 days — longer than the median NR supplement patent dispute in the S.D.N.Y.
Voluntarily dismissed as moot: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Joint Stipulation, Not a Merits Decision
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. It terminates the action without any court adjudication on the merits. Here, the impetus was the Federal Circuit’s patent-ineligibility ruling in the Elysium Health matter, which rendered further litigation against Thorne commercially and legally moot. No court in this action ruled on infringement, validity, or damages.
No merits adjudicationWith or Without Prejudice? The Record Is Silent
A voluntary dismissal can be with prejudice (barring refiling) or without prejudice (permitting future action). The stipulation states claims are dismissed ‘as moot’ but does not expressly specify either form. Under Rule 41, a stipulated dismissal is generally without prejudice unless the order states otherwise — but the underlying patents have already been found patent-ineligible by the Federal Circuit, so the practical distinction may be academic.
Prejudice status unspecifiedChromaDex and Dartmouth: Enforcement Avenue Effectively Closed
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of patent-ineligibility in Elysium Health — not a ruling in this case — is what ended ChromaDex’s and Dartmouth’s enforcement position. With the asserted claims invalidated, the plaintiffs had no viable path to damages or injunctive relief against Thorne. The dismissal reflects a strategic recognition of that reality rather than a negotiated settlement or any admission by Thorne.
Enforcement position lostThorne Exits Without Liability — But NR Sector Dynamics Shift
Thorne Research avoids any finding of infringement or willfulness and bears only its own legal costs. However, the broader NR supplement market now operates without the patent barrier that ChromaDex and Dartmouth sought to enforce. Competitors, including Thorne, face a more open competitive landscape for NR-based products, though ChromaDex may retain commercial advantages through know-how, brand, and supply chain control.
No liability; sector opensFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Chromadex.com | Individual | NR supplement developer and exclusive licensee — holder of US8197807 and US8383086Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Thorne Research, Inc. | Company | Thorne Research, Inc. — nutraceutical company marketing NR-based dietary supplementsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher N. Sipes | Attorney | Counsel for Chromadex.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Diane Cieluch | Attorney | Counsel for Chromadex.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Jason Fowler | Attorney | Counsel for Chromadex.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yiye Fu | Attorney | Counsel for Chromadex.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Covington & Burling, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Chromadex.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kristina Marie Hanson | Attorney | Counsel for Thorne Research, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael S. Sommer | Attorney | Counsel for Thorne Research, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | WilsonSonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP | Law Firm | Representing Thorne Research, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Edgardo Ramos | Chief Judge | New York Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation recites that all claims, counterclaims, and defenses are dismissed ‘as moot’ under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with costs lying where they fall. This language confirms no merits adjudication occurred in this action. The dismissal is a direct consequence of the Federal Circuit’s patent-ineligibility ruling in a parallel matter — making continued enforcement legally futile. The stipulation does not expressly state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, leaving that question formally open, though the practical enforceability of the patents is already resolved by the Elysium Health decision.
US8197807 & US8383086 — Isolated Nicotinamide Riboside (NR) Dietary Supplements
US8,197,807 and US8,383,086 were assigned to the Trustees of Dartmouth College and exclusively licensed to ChromaDex for dietary supplement applications. Both patents cover isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR), a naturally occurring form of vitamin B3 that serves as a precursor to NAD+ — a coenzyme central to cellular energy metabolism. The application lineage traces to Dartmouth academic research, and ChromaDex commercialised the claims through its NIAGEN® ingredient, which it supplied to brands including its own TRU NIAGEN® consumer line.
Despite anchoring a significant commercial market, both patents were found patent-ineligible by the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the context of the Elysium Health litigation. The ruling is consistent with judicial skepticism toward claims directed to isolated naturally occurring compounds following Mayo and Myriad. For the NAD+ supplement sector, invalidation removes a key barrier to entry that ChromaDex had used to defend its ingredient exclusivity. Competitors including Thorne Research, Elysium Health, and others can now source or manufacture NR without risk of infringement under these specific claims.
Should you run an FTO against US8197807 and US8383086 for NR supplement products?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or marketing nicotinamide riboside dietary supplements — including NR-based capsules, powders, or combination formulations — should understand the current patent landscape. While the asserted claims in these two patents have been found patent-ineligible by the Federal Circuit, Dartmouth and ChromaDex may hold related continuation, divisional, or foreign counterpart patents that are still active. A confirmed FTO on the full Dartmouth/ChromaDex portfolio is essential before scaling NR product lines or entering supply agreements.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the full patent family landscape around NR and NAD+ precursor compounds, identify active continuation filings from Dartmouth’s portfolio, and flag any claims that survived the § 101 challenge. Eureka’s claim-level analysis can surface prosecution history estoppel and claim scope limitations that affect your product’s risk profile — faster and more comprehensively than manual prior art searches.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8383086B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NR and nutraceutical patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving isolated compound patents for dietary supplements and NAD+ precursors litigated in U.S. district courts, including ChromaDex’s parallel action against Elysium Health.
What this case signals for the NR supplement and nutraceutical IP landscape
The collapse of NR patent enforcement after Federal Circuit scrutiny reshapes the competitive dynamics of the fast-growing NAD+ supplement sector.
Parallel IPR and litigation create compounding invalidation risk for nutraceutical patents
ChromaDex’s enforcement strategy spanned multiple venues simultaneously — district court, PTAB, and the Federal Circuit. When the Federal Circuit affirmed patent-ineligibility in the Elysium case, it cascaded to invalidate the PTAB decision and moot this district court action. IP holders in the supplement space should model cross-venue risk before committing to multi-front enforcement.
Section 101 eligibility remains the critical vulnerability for isolated compound patents
The ‘807 and ‘086 patents covering isolated NR — a naturally occurring form of vitamin B3 — were found patent-ineligible, consistent with post-Alice and Mayo doctrine applied to naturally derived compounds. R&D teams and IP counsel developing dietary supplement patents should prioritise claim structures that capture specific formulation methods or delivery mechanisms, not isolated natural compounds alone.
Chromadex.com v Thorne — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed as moot on January 4, 2024, after 967 days. ChromaDex and Dartmouth had sued Thorne for infringing NR patents US8197807 and US8383086, but the Federal Circuit’s ruling in ChromaDex v. Elysium Health affirming patent-ineligibility of the asserted claims rendered further litigation untenable. Each party bore its own costs.
The Federal Circuit affirmed patent-ineligibility of the claims in ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., 59 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2023), consistent with § 101 doctrine applied to naturally occurring compounds following Mayo and Myriad. Isolated nicotinamide riboside is a naturally occurring form of vitamin B3, and claims directed to its isolation were found to lack patent-eligible subject matter.
In August 2022, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1–3 of the ‘807 patent not unpatentable. Thorne appealed to the Federal Circuit. However, following the Elysium Health ruling, the Federal Circuit dismissed that appeal as moot, vacated the prior PTAB decision, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the IPR as moot. (Thorne Research v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, C.A. No. 2023-1055, Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2023.)
The joint stipulation dismisses all claims as moot under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) but does not expressly state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The public record is silent on this point. Practically, the distinction is limited given that the underlying patents have been found patent-ineligible by the Federal Circuit in the parallel Elysium Health matter.
The invalidation of the core NR claims removes a significant patent barrier for NR supplement competitors. However, companies should not assume a fully clear FTO: Dartmouth and ChromaDex may hold continuation or divisional patents with different claim scopes that survived § 101 scrutiny. A full FTO analysis against the complete Dartmouth/ChromaDex portfolio is advisable before commercialising NR-based products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.