By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in ChromaDex, Inc. et al. v. Elysium Health, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-1434-CFC-JLH (D.Del. December 17, 2020), the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Elysium Health’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Plaintiff ChromaDex’s patent infringement claims after finding that (1) ChromaDex lacked standing to allege that Elysium infringed the asserted patents after March 13, 2017 – the effective date of the Restated License Agreement; and (2) ChromaDex had standing to allege its infringement claims based on Elysium’s conduct occurring between July 13, 2012 and March 12, 2017. Id. at *2-12.
In reaching its findings, the Court recognized that the Restated License Agreement granted ChromaDex and Healthspan the ability to sublicense the asserted patents as of March 13, 2017. Id.at *9-12. “Because Healthspan had the right to give Elysium a license to practice the asserted patents as of March 13, 2017, ChromaDex did not have the right to exclude Elysium from practicing the patents from that date forward.” Id.at *11-12. Thus, ChromaDex lacked standing to allege that Elysium infringed the asserted patents on or after March 13, 2017. Id. at *12. There was no evidence and Elysium did not argue that ChromaDex was not an exclusive licensee under the Original License Agreement which became effective on July 13, 2012. Thus, ChromaDex had standing to allege its infringement claims based on Elysium’s conduct occurring between July 13, 2012 and March 12, 2017. Id.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.