XML 27 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal proceedings 1. Elysium Health, LLC (A) California Action On December 29, 2016, ChromaDex filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming Elysium Health, Inc. (together with Elysium Health, LLC, “Elysium”) as defendant (Complaint). On January 25, 2017, Elysium filed an answer and counterclaims in response to the Complaint (together with the Complaint, the “California Action”). Over the course of the California Action, the parties have each filed amended pleadings several times and have each engaged in several rounds of motions to dismiss and one round of motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to various claims. Most recently, on November 27, 2018, ChromaDex filed a fifth amended complaint that added an individual, Mark Morris, as a defendant. Elysium and Morris (Defendants) moved to dismiss on December 21, 2018. The court denied Defendants’ motion on February 4, 2019. Defendants filed their answer to ChromaDex’s fifth amended complaint on February 19, 2019. ChromaDex filed an answer to Elysium’s restated counterclaims on March 5, 2019. Discovery closed on August 9, 2019. On August 16, 2019, the parties filed motions for partial summary judgment as to certain claims and counterclaims. The parties filed opposition briefs on August 28, 2019, and reply briefs on September 4, 2019. On October 9, 2019, among other things, the court vacated the previously scheduled trial date, ordered supplemental briefing with respect to certain issues related to summary judgment. Elysium filed its opening supplemental brief on October 30, 2019, ChromaDex filed its opening supplemental brief on November 18, 2019, and Elysium filed a reply brief on November 27, 2019, and the court heard argument on January 13, 2020. On January 16, 2020, the court granted both parties’ motions for summary judgment in part and denied both in part. On ChromaDex’s motion, the court granted summary judgment in favor of ChromaDex on Elysium’s counterclaims for (i) breach of contract related to manufacturing Niagen® according to the defined standard, selling Niagen® and ingredients that are substantially similar to pterostilbene to other customers, distributing the Niagen® product specifications, and failing to provide information concerning the quality and identity of Niagen®, and (ii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denied summary judgment on Elysium’s counterclaims for (i) fraudulent inducement of the Trademark License and Royalty Agreement, dated February 3, 2014, by and between ChromaDex and Elysium (License Agreement), (ii) patent misuse, and (iii) unjust enrichment. On Elysium’s motion, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Elysium on ChromaDex’s claim for damages related to $110,000 in avoided costs arising from documents that Elysium used in violation of the Supply Agreement, dated February 3, 2014, by and between ChromaDex and Elysium, as amended (Niagen® Supply Agreement). The court denied summary judgment on Elysium’s counterclaim for breach of contract related to certain refunds or credits to Elysium. The court also denied summary judgment on ChromaDex’s breach of contract claim against Morris and claims for disgorgement of $8.3 million in Elysium’s resale profits, $600,000 for a price discount received by Elysium, and $684,781 in Morris’s compensation. Following the court’s January 16, 2020 order, ChromaDex’s claims asserted in the California Action, among other allegations, were that (i) Elysium breached the Supply Agreement, dated June 26, 2014, by and between ChromaDex and Elysium (pTeroPure® Supply Agreement), by failing to make payments to ChromaDex for purchases of pTeroPure® and by improper disclosure of confidential ChromaDex information pursuant to the pTeroPure® Supply Agreement, (ii) Elysium breached the Niagen® Supply Agreement, by failing to make payments to ChromaDex for purchases of Niagen®, (iii) Defendants willfully and maliciously misappropriated ChromaDex trade secrets concerning its ingredient sales business under both the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, (iv) Morris breached two confidentiality agreements he signed by improperly stealing confidential ChromaDex documents and information, (v) Morris breached his fiduciary duty to ChromaDex by lying to and competing with ChromaDex while still employed there, and (vi) Elysium aided and abetted Morris’s breach of fiduciary duty. ChromaDex sought damages and interest for Elysium’s alleged breaches of the Niagen® Supply Agreement and pTeroPure® Supply Agreement and Morris’s alleged breaches of his confidentiality agreements, compensatory damages and interest, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees for Defendants’ alleged willful and malicious misappropriation of ChromaDex’s trade secrets, and compensatory damages and interest, disgorgement of all benefits received, and punitive damages for Morris’s alleged breach of his fiduciary duty and Elysium’s aiding and abetting of that alleged breach. Elysium’s claims alleged in the California Action were that (i) ChromaDex breached the Niagen® Supply Agreement by not issuing certain refunds or credits to Elysium, (ii) ChromaDex fraudulently induced Elysium into entering into the License Agreement, (iv) ChromaDex’s conduct constitutes misuse of its patent rights, and (v) ChromaDex was unjustly enriched by the royalties Elysium paid pursuant to the License Agreement. Elysium sought damages for ChromaDex’s alleged breaches of the Niagen® Supply Agreement, and compensatory damages, punitive damages, and/or rescission of the License Agreement and restitution of any royalty payments conveyed by Elysium pursuant to the License Agreement, and a declaratory judgment that ChromaDex has engaged in patent misuse. On January 17, 2020, Elysium moved to substitute its counsel. The same day, the court ordered hearing on that motion for January 21, 2020, and granted Elysium’s motion at the hearing. On January 23, 2020, the court issued a scheduling order that, among other things, set trial on the remaining claims to begin on May 12, 2020. On March 19, 2020, in light of the global 2019 coronavirus disease ("COVID-19" or "COVID") pandemic and ongoing private mediation efforts, the parties jointly stipulated to adjourn the trial date. The court vacated the trial date on March 20, 2020. The court held a telephonic status conference on June 9, 2020, during which the court indicated that it will reschedule the jury trial as soon as conditions permit. On November 4, 2020, the parties submitted a joint status report indicating that they will propose a new trial date as soon as the court announces that it will resume jury trials. On November 18, 2020, the court set trial to begin on September 21, 2021. On December 11, 2020, Elysium filed a “Notice of Correction of Depositions” related to the depositions of its chief executive officer, Eric Marcotulli, and chief operating officer, Daniel Alminana, both taken in March 2019. On March 8, 2021, based in part on information that Elysium submitted under seal with that notice, ChromaDex filed a motion for sanctions or, in the alternative, reconsideration of the court’s January 16, 2020 order regarding summary judgment, in which ChromaDex moved to dismiss Elysium’s third, fourth, and fifth counterclaims. Elysium’s opposition brief was filed on March 22, 2021. ChromaDex filed its reply brief on March 29, 2021. On April 27, 2021, the court denied ChromaDex, Inc’s motion for terminating sanctions, but concluded that the evidence at issue in the motion will be admissible at trial. The jury trial portion of the case commenced on September 21, 2021. The jury returned a verdict on September 27, 2021. The verdict found (i) Elysium liable for breaches of the Niagen® and pTeroPure® Supply Agreements for failing to pay for purchases of the ingredients totaling approximately $3.0 million, (ii) Mark Morris liable for breach of a confidentiality agreement, requiring him to disgorge approximately $17,307, (iii) ChromaDex liable for breaching the Niagen® Supply Agreement for not issuing certain refunds or credits to Elysium in the amount of $625,000, and (iv) ChromaDex liable for fraudulent inducement of the Licensing Agreement in the amount of $250,000, along with $1,025,000 in punitive damages arising from the same counterclaim. On October 25, 2021, ChromaDex informed the court that it would request prejudgment interest on the approximately $3.0 million in damages awarded by the jury for Elysium’s breaches of the Niagen® and pTeroPure® Supply Agreements. Elysium’s opposition brief was filed on January 24, 2022, and ChromaDex, Inc.’s reply brief was filed on January 31, 2022. On February 10, 2022, the court denied ChromaDex Inc.’s motion for prejudgment interest. On February 18, 2022, ChromaDex, Inc. and Elysium jointly filed a notice informing the court that ChromaDex, Inc. had filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY Court) a motion to enforce a settlement agreement between ChromaDex, Inc. and Elysium that ChromaDex, Inc. asserts would materially affect the California Action. On April 22, 2022, ChromaDex, Inc. and Elysium jointly filed a notice informing the court that the SDNY Court had granted ChromaDex, Inc.’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. On April 29, 2022, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a notice informing the court that the SDNY Court had dismissed the SDNY action with prejudice pursuant to the settlement agreement. On August 22, 2022, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on the basis that the settlement agreement was enforceable and resolved the claims and counterclaims tried to the jury in the California Action. Elysium’s opposition brief was filed on August 29, 2022, and ChromaDex, Inc.’s reply brief was filed on September 2, 2022. On September 13, 2022, the court denied ChromaDex, Inc.’s motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). On September 28, 2022, ChromaDex, Inc., Elysium, and Mark Morris filed a joint stipulation requesting that the court stay the California Action pending the final resolution of ChromaDex, Inc.’s appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit captioned ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., No. 2022-1116 (the “Federal Circuit Appeal”). On September 28, 2022, the court issued an order staying the California Action pending the final resolution of the Federal Circuit Appeal. On June 16, 2023, ChromaDex, Elysium, and Mark Morris filed a joint status report and stipulation informing the court that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had issued its mandate in the Federal Circuit Appeal and requesting the court continue the stay of the California Action until August 22, 2023, in order to allow the parties in the Federal Circuit Appeal the opportunity to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. On June 20, 2023, the court approved the joint stipulation and continued the stay until August 22, 2023. (B) Southern District of New York Action On September 27, 2017, Elysium Health Inc. (Elysium Health) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against ChromaDex (Elysium SDNY Complaint). Elysium Health alleged in the Elysium SDNY Complaint that ChromaDex made false and misleading statements in a citizen petition to the Food and Drug Administration it filed on or about August 18, 2017. Among other allegations, Elysium Health averred that the citizen petition made Elysium Health’s product appear dangerous, while casting ChromaDex’s own product as safe. The Elysium SDNY Complaint asserted four claims for relief: (i) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (ii) trade libel; (iii) deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349; and (iv) tortious interference with prospective economic relations. On October 26, 2017, ChromaDex moved to dismiss the Elysium SDNY Complaint on the grounds that, inter alia, its statements in the citizen petition are immune from liability under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, the litigation privilege, and New York’s Anti-SLAPP statute, and that the Elysium SDNY Complaint failed to state a claim. Elysium Health opposed the motion on November 2, 2017. ChromaDex filed its reply on November 9, 2017. On October 26, 2017, ChromaDex filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Elysium Health (ChromaDex SDNY Complaint). ChromaDex alleges that Elysium Health made material false and misleading statements to consumers in the promotion, marketing, and sale of its health supplement product, Basis, and asserts five claims for relief: (i) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (ii) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (iii) deceptive practices under New York General Business Law § 349; (iv) deceptive practices under New York General Business Law § 350; and (v) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. On November 16, 2017, Elysium Health moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. ChromaDex opposed the motion on November 30, 2017 and Elysium Health filed a reply on December 7, 2017. On November 3, 2017, the Court consolidated the Elysium SDNY Complaint and the ChromaDex SDNY Complaint actions under the caption In re Elysium Health-ChromaDex Litigation, 17-cv-7394, and stayed discovery in the consolidated action pending a Court-ordered mediation. The mediation was unsuccessful. On September 27, 2018, the Court issued a combined ruling on both parties’ motions to dismiss. For ChromaDex’s motion to dismiss, the Court converted the part of the motion on the issue of whether the citizen petition is immune under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine into a motion for summary judgment, and requested supplemental evidence from both parties, which were submitted on October 29, 2018. The Court otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. On January 3, 2019, the Court granted ChromaDex’s motion for summary judgment under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine and dismissed all claims in the Elysium SDNY Complaint. Elysium moved for reconsideration on January 17, 2019. The Court denied Elysium’s motion for reconsideration on February 6, 2019, and issued an amended final order granting ChromaDex’s motion for summary judgment on February 7, 2019. The Court granted in part and denied in part Elysium’s motion to dismiss, sustaining three grounds for ChromaDex’s Lanham Act claims while dismissing two others, sustaining the claim under New York General Business Law § 349, and dismissing the claims under New York General Business Law § 350 and for tortious interference. Elysium filed an answer and counterclaims on October 10, 2018, alleging claims for (i) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (ii) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and (iii) deceptive practices under New York General Business Law § 349. ChromaDex answered Elysium’s counterclaims on November 2, 2018. ChromaDex filed an amended complaint on March 27, 2019, adding new claims against Elysium Health for false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). On April 10, 2019, Elysium Health answered the amended complaint and filed amended counterclaims, also adding new claims against ChromaDex for false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). On July 1, 2019, Elysium Health filed further amended counterclaims, adding new claims under the Copyright Act §§ 106 & 501. On February 9, 2020, ChromaDex filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to add additional claims against Elysium Health for false advertising and unfair competition. On February 10, 2020, Elysium Health filed a motion for leave to amend its counterclaims to identify allegedly false and misleading statements in ChromaDex’s advertising. Those motions were both granted after respective stipulations. On March 12, 2020, Elysium Health answered the second amended complaint. On March 13, 2020, ChromaDex filed an answer and objection to Elysium Health’s third amended counterclaims. On December 14, 2020, Elysium Health filed a motion to supplement and amend its counterclaims to add claims regarding alleged advertising related to COVID, to add an allegation about a change to the ChromaDex website, and to remove its copyright infringement claim under the Copyright Act. On January 19, 2021, the Court denied Elysium Health’s motion to add claims regarding alleged advertising related to COVID. The Court granted the unopposed requests to add an allegation about a change to ChromaDex’s website and to remove Elysium’s Copyright Act claim. Pursuant to the Court’s order, Elysium filed fourth amended counterclaims on April 21, 2021. All discovery closed on April 23, 2021. The Court vacated a previously scheduled joint pretrial order and trial date because of COVID-19, and the Court has informed the Parties that trial date will be rescheduled in November or December 2021. Both parties filed dispositive and Daubert motions on June 4, 2021. Opposition papers were filed by both parties on June 25, 2021, and reply papers were filed on July 9, 2021. On January 10, 2022, both parties appeared for oral argument on the dispositive and Daubert motions. On February 3, 2022, ChromaDex reached a settlement in order to resolve the SDNY action in its entirety as well as the claims tried to the jury in the Central District of California (the “Settlement Agreement”). Shortly thereafter, before the parties could notify the Court, the Court issued a ruling on the pending dispositive and Daubert motions, dismissing ChromaDex’s SDNY complaint in its entirety on the grounds that ChromaDex’s damages were uncertain, and dismissing some of Elysium’s claims. Elysium then asserted that a settlement had not been reached. ChromaDex thereafter filed a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement in its entirety on February 16, 2022. Elysium’s opposition to that motion was filed on March 2, 2022, and ChromaDex’s reply was filed on March 9, 2022. On April 19, 2022, the Court concluded that a settlement had been reached and granted ChromaDex’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. On April 28, 2022, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Court dismissed the entire action with prejudice. On May 11, 2022, Elysium filed a notice of appeal. On May 25, 2022, ChromaDex filed a notice of cross-appeal. Elysium filed its opening brief on August 24, 2022. ChromaDex filed its opening and response brief on November 22, 2022. Elysium filed its reply and response brief on January 20, 2023. ChromaDex filed its reply brief on February 10, 2023. Oral argument is scheduled for October 13, 2023. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the Elysium SDNY Complaint or any possible appeals and, at this time, cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to the legal proceeding discussed herein. As of June 30, 2023, ChromaDex did not accrue a potential loss for the Elysium SDNY Complaint because ChromaDex believes that the allegations are without merit and thus it is not probable that a liability has been incurred. (C) Delaware - Patent Infringement Action On September 17, 2018, ChromaDex and Trustees of Dartmouth College filed a patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Elysium Health, Inc. The complaint alleges that Elysium’s BASIS® dietary supplement infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,197,807 (‘807 Patent) and 8,383,086 (‘086 Patent) that comprise compositions containing isolated nicotinamide riboside held by Dartmouth and licensed exclusively to ChromaDex On October 23, 2018, Elysium filed an answer to the complaint. The answer asserts various affirmative defenses and denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. On November 7, 2018, Elysium filed a motion to stay the patent infringement proceedings pending resolution of (1) the inter partes review of the ‘807 Patent and the ‘086 Patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and (2) the outcome of the litigation in the California Action. ChromaDex filed an opposition brief on November 21, 2018 detailing the issues with Elysium’s motion to stay. In particular, ChromaDex argued that given claim 2 of the ‘086 Patent was only included in the PTAB’s inter partes review for procedural reasons the PTAB was unlikely to invalidate claim 2 and therefore litigation in Delaware would continue regardless. In addition, ChromaDex argued that the litigation in the California Action is unlikely to have a significant effect on the ongoing patent litigation. After the PTAB released its written decision upholding claim 2 of the ‘086 Patent, proving right ChromaDex’s prediction, ChromaDex informed the Delaware court of the PTAB’s decision on January 17, 2019. On June 19, 2019, the Delaware court granted in part and denied in part Elysium’s motion, ordering that the case was stayed pending the resolution of Elysium’s patent misuse counterclaim in the California Action. On November 1, 2019, ChromaDex filed a motion to lift the stay due to changed circumstances in the California Action, among other reasons. Briefing on the motion was completed on November 22, 2019. On January 6, 2020, the Delaware court issued an oral order instructing the parties to submit a joint status report after the January 13, 2020 motions hearing in the California Action. The joint status report was submitted on January 30, 2020. On February 4, 2020, the Delaware court issued an order granting ChromaDex’s motion to lift the stay and setting a scheduling conference for March 10, 2020. On March 19, 2020, the Delaware court entered a scheduling order, which, among other things, set the claim-construction hearing for December 17, 2020 and trial for the week of September 27, 2021. On April 17, 2020, ChromaDex served infringement contentions. Elysium filed a Second Amended Answer on July 10, 2020. On April 24, 2020, ChromaDex moved for leave to amend the complaint to add Healthspan Research, LLC as a plaintiff. On May 5, 2020, Elysium filed its opposition to ChromaDex’s motion for leave to amend and moved to dismiss ChromaDex for alleged lack of standing. ChromaDex filed its opposition to Elysium’s motion to dismiss and reply in support of its motion to amend on May 19, 2020. Elysium filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on May 26, 2020. The Court held a hearing on the motion for leave to amend the complaint and Elysium’s motion to dismiss on September 16, 2020. On December 15, 2020, the Court entered orders (i) granting in part and denying in part Elysium’s motion to dismiss ChromaDex for alleged lack of standing; and (ii) denying ChromaDex’s motion for leave to amend. ChromaDex filed a motion for reargument on December 29, 2020. Elysium filed a response to the motion for reargument on January 28, 2021. ChromaDex filed a motion for leave to file a reply on February 8, 2021. Elysium filed a response to the motion for leave to file a reply on February 12, 2021. ChromaDex filed a reply to the motion for leave to file a reply on February 19, 2021. The Court granted the motion for leave to file the reply on April 26, 2021, and denied the motion for reargument on April 27, 2021. On July 22, 2020 the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Chart and respective motions for claim construction. The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Brief on November 5, 2020. The Court held a Markman hearing on claim-construction issues on December 17, 2020. The Court entered a claim-construction ruling on January 5, 2021. Fact discovery closed on January 26, 2021. Opening expert reports were served on February 9, 2021. Responsive expert reports were served on March 9, 2021. Reply expert reports were served on March 30, 2021. Both parties filed dispositive and Daubert motions on April 27, 2021. On September 21, 2021, the Court granted Elysium’s motion for summary judgment that the claims of the ‘807 and ‘086 patents are invalid based on patent-ineligible subject matter. ChromaDex filed a notice of appeal on November 2, 2021. ChromaDex’s opening brief was filed on February 2, 2022. Elysium’s response brief was filed on April 11, 2022. ChromaDex’s reply brief was filed on May 9, 2022. Oral argument occurred on December 6, 2022. On February 13, 2023, the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the district court’s decision. On March 15, 2023, ChromaDex filed a petition for a panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. On April 10, 2023, the court of appeals invited Elysium to file a response to the petition and on April 24, 2023, Elysium filed a response to the petition. On May 10, 2023, the court of appeals denied the petition. On May 17, 2023, the court of appeals issued the mandate. On June 16, 2023, Elysium filed a bill of costs and a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 30, 2023, ChromaDex filed objections to Elysium’s bill of costs. On July 21, 2023, ChromaDex filed a response to Elysium’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 28, 2023, ChromaDex filed an application for an extension of time to September 7, 2023 to file a petition for writ of certiorari. On August 1, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the requested extension. The Company does not believe that this decision will have a material impact on the Company’s NR business. 2. Thorne Research, Inc. (A) Inter Partes Review Proceedings On or around September 28, 2020, Thorne Research, Inc. (Thorne) provided notice to ChromaDex that it intended to terminate its March 25, 2019 Supply Agreement and subsequent amendments with ChromaDex, effective as of December 31, 2020. A discussion between ChromaDex and Thorne followed, and Thorne asserted that it could challenge the ‘086 Patent in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding on the basis of prior art, but would be willing to enter into a mutual existence agreement that would permit Thorne to source NR from a third party. Thorne did not offer substantive information supporting a prior art claim or about the nature of the threatened IPR. On December 1, 2020, Thorne filed a petition for IPR of the ‘086 Patent. Dartmouth’s preliminary response to the petition was filed on March 15, 2021. On June 10, 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision instituting an IPR on the ‘086 Patent. On September 21, 2021, Dartmouth filed its Patent Owner Response. On December 21, 2021, Thorne filed its reply. Oral argument was held on March 15, 2022. On May 31, 2022, the PTAB issued a final written decision holding that the challenged claim was unpatentable. On August 2, 2022, Dartmouth filed a notice of appeal. On December 29, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the appeal. On January 3, 2023, the appeal was dismissed. On February 1, 2021, Thorne filed a petition for IPR of the ‘807 Patent. Dartmouth’s preliminary response to the petition was filed on May 18, 2021. On August 12, 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision instituting an IPR on the ‘807 Patent. On November 9, 2021, Dartmouth filed its Patent Owner Response. On February 15, 2022, Thorne filed its reply. Oral argument was held on May 17, 2022. On August 10, 2022, the PTAB issued a final written decision holding that the challenged claims were not unpatentable. On October 12, 2022, Thorne filed a notice of appeal. On April 4, 2023, the court of appeals stayed the appeal pending issuance of the mandate in the pending appeal from the Delaware patent infringement action. On June 22, 2023, the court of appeals directed the parties to inform the court of appeals by no later than August 1, 2023 how they believe the appeal should proceed. On August 1, 2023, the parties requested that the court of appeals continue the stay of briefing until Dartmouth has determined whether it will seek certiorari. (B) Southern District of New York – Patent Infringement Action On May 12, 2021, ChromaDex and Trustees of Dartmouth College filed a patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that certain of Thorne’s dietary supplements containing isolated NR infringe the ‘807 and ‘086 Patents, which claim compositions containing isolated nicotinamide riboside and are held by Dartmouth and licensed exclusively to ChromaDex. On July 6, 2021, Thorne filed an answer and counterclaims to the complaint. The answer asserts various affirmative defenses and denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. The counterclaims seek declaratory judgment of patent invalidity for the ‘807 and ‘086 Patents. On July 8, 2021, the parties filed a proposed stipulation and order staying the matter pending issuance of the institution decision in the ‘807 Patent IPR. On July 9, 2021, the Court granted the stipulation and order to stay. On August 19, 2021, the parties filed a proposed stipulation and order staying the matter pending issuance of final written decisions in the IPRs. On August 20, 2021, the Court granted the stipulation and order to stay. On August 24, 2022, the parties filed a status report agreeing to continue to stay until fourteen days after the deadline to appeal the final written notice decision in the ‘807 Patent IPR. On October 26, 2022, the parties filed a further status report agreeing to continue the stay through resolution of the appeals. 3. Contingencies (A) In September 2019, the Company received a letter from a licensor stating that the Company owed the licensor $1.6 million plus interest for sublicense fees as a result of the Company entering into a supply agreement with a customer. After reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company believes that the Company does not owe any sublicense fees to the licensor and has corresponded with the licensor to resolve the matter. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. (B) On November 17, 2020, the Company received a warning letter (the Letter) from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Letter references statements issued by the Company relating to preclinical and clinical research results involving nicotinamide riboside and COVID-19. The statements were included in press releases and referenced in social media posts. On November 18, 2020, the Company provided a response to the Letter stating that the Company disagrees with the assertion in the Letter that the Company’s products are intended to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19 in violation of certain sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or that they were unsubstantiated under the FTC Act, but rather accurately reflected the state of the science and the results of scientific research. Nonetheless, the Company also responded that it had deleted social media references to the studies and removed related press releases from its website. On April 30, 2021, the Company received an additional warning letter (the Second Letter) from only the FTC. The Second Letter references the original Letter, and cites additional statements issued by the Company and certain officers and advisors of the Company relating to nicotinamide riboside and scientific studies related to COVID-19. The Second Letter asserts that such statements contain coronavirus-related prevention or treatment claims and are deceptive in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. On May 4, 2021, the Company provided a response to the Second Letter stating that it had removed the social posts from its accounts identified in the Second Letter and requested that third parties remove the post from their accounts that were identified in the Second Letter. The Company stated that the press release identified in the Second Letter is appropriate and not a deceptive act or practice under applicable law. The Company affirmed its belief in the need to accurately report on the scientific results of its studies to its investors and welcomed the opportunity to discuss its research and development program with the FTC and receive guidance on future releases. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for significant arrangements with third parties, which includes operating lease arrangements and arrangements in which the entity has agreed to expend funds to procure goods or services, or has agreed to commit resources to supply goods or services, and operating lease arrangements. Descriptions may include identification of the specific goods and services, period of time covered, minimum quantities and amounts, and cancellation rights. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration