The Company uses contract manufacturers to provide manufacturing services for its products. During the normal course of business, in order to manage manufacturing lead times and help ensure adequate supply, the Company enters into agreements with its contract manufacturers that either allow them to procure inventory based on criteria as defined by the Company or that establish the parameters defining the Company’s requirements. A portion of the Company’s purchase commitments arising from these agreements consist of firm, non-cancelable and unconditional purchase commitments. In certain instances, these agreements allow the Company the option to cancel, reschedule or adjust the Company’s requirements based on its business needs prior to firm orders being placed.

The Company has various licensing agreements with leading research universities and other patent holders, pursuant to which the Company acquired patents related to certain products the Company offers to its customers. These agreements afford for royalty payments based on contractual minimums and expire at various dates ranging from 2025 through 2037, often correlated to the expiration date of each patent. In addition, the Company is required to pay a range of 1% to 5% of sales related to the licensed products under these agreements.

On November 27, 2024, ChromaDex entered into a Supplemental Agreement (the “Supplemental Agreement”) with the Trustees of Dartmouth College (“Dartmouth,” and together with ChromaDex, the “Parties”). The Supplemental Agreement supplements the exclusive license agreements entered into between the Parties dated July 13, 2012 (as amended and restated as of March 13, 2017 and December 29, 2020, the “2012 Agreement”) and May 16, 2014 (together with the 2012 Agreement, the “Exclusive License Agreements”) pursuant to which ChromaDex received an exclusive license under Dartmouth-owned U.S. patents (the “Dartmouth Patents”).

Under the Supplemental Agreement, Dartmouth agreed, subject to certain conditions specified in the Supplemental Agreement and the fulfillment of ChromaDex’s obligations under the Agreement, (i) to waive certain accrued but unpaid royalties, license fees, and maintenance expenses owed by ChromaDex under the Exclusive License Agreements, which totaled an aggregate of $3.5 million, and (ii) that no additional royalties, license fees, maintenance or other expenses or other payments will be assessed by Dartmouth or payable by the Company to Dartmouth for the Dartmouth Patents after the effective date of the Agreement. The waiver was contingent upon ChromaDex securing a bond (the “Appeal Bond”) for the amount of the fee judgement, if any, related to the Delaware patent infringement case against Elysium Health, Inc. filed by the Company and Dartmouth relating to the Dartmouth Patents. On November 21, 2024, the Appeal Bond was secured through a letter of credit issued on behalf of the Company, which was supported by the Company's line of credit. See Note 14, Line of Credit and Other Available Sources of Financing for more information regarding the letter of credit issuance and its connection to the line of credit. As a result, for the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company reversed $3.5 million of previously accrued royalties, license fees, and maintenance expenses under accrued expenses in its Consolidated Balance Sheets and recorded a reduction in royalty expense, license fees, and maintenance expenses in general and administrative expenses in its Consolidated Statements of Operations. For information regarding the Delaware patent infringement case against Elysium Health, Inc. see Legal Proceedings below.

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. On January 16, 2020, the court granted both parties’ motions for summary judgment in part and denied both in part.

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), (ii) Elysium breached the Supply Agreement, dated February 3, 2014, by and between ChromaDex and Elysium, as amended (“Niagen® Supply Agreement”), (iii) Defendants misappropriated ChromaDex trade secrets, (iv) Morris breached two confidentiality agreements, (v) Morris breached his fiduciary duty to ChromaDex, and (vi) Elysium aided and abetted Morris’s breach of fiduciary duty. ChromaDex sought damages, interest, and other relief.

Elysium’s claims alleged in the California Action were that (i) ChromaDex breached the Niagen® Supply Agreement, (ii) ChromaDex fraudulently induced Elysium into entering into the Trademark License and Royalty Agreement, dated February 3, 2014, by and between ChromaDex and Elysium (the “License Agreement”), (iv) ChromaDex misused its patent rights, and (v) ChromaDex was unjustly enriched by the royalties Elysium paid pursuant to the License Agreement. Elysium sought damages, restitution, a declaratory judgment, and other relief.

On November 18, 2020, the court set trial to begin on September 21, 2021. 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. On February 10, 2022, the court denied ChromaDex Inc.’s motion for prejudgment interest.

On February 18, 2022, ChromaDex and Elysium jointly filed a notice informing the court that ChromaDex 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 and Elysium. On April 22, 2022, ChromaDex and Elysium jointly filed a notice informing the court that the SDNY Court had granted ChromaDex’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. On August 22, 2022, ChromaDex 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. 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. The California Action remained stayed until early 2024.

On February 23, 2024, ChromaDex, Elysium, and Mark Morris filed a joint status report and stipulation requesting that the court approve a schedule for briefing concerning the judgment in the California Action. On February 26, 2024, the court approved the joint stipulation and adopted the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. On April 26, 2024, ChromaDex filed its motion for entry of final judgment. On August 13, 2024, the court granted ChromaDex’s motion for entry of final judgment and entered a judgment requiring Elysium to pay to ChromaDex the sum of $2,500,000. On September 11, 2024, Elysium and Mark Morris filed a notice of appeal. On September 25, 2024, ChromaDex filed a notice of conditional cross-appeal.

On September 3, 2024, ChromaDex filed with the district court a motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. On October 8, 2024, the court issued an order granting ChromaDex’s request for interest and denying ChromaDex’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. In its October 8, 2024 order, the court awarded to ChromaDex pre-judgment interest in the amount of $21,768.82 and post-judgment interest accruing at the rate of 4.46 percent per annum until satisfaction of the $2,500,000 judgment. On November 7, 2024, ChromaDex filed a notice of appeal from the court’s order denying ChromaDex’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.

On December 24, 2024, the parties reached a binding settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to resolve the California Action, including any outstanding post-judgment matters, as well as each of the above-referenced appeals pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Appeals”). On December 26, 2024, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties filed with the district court a joint stipulation to amend the judgment, whereby the parties requested that the court vacate the August 13, 2024 judgment and enter an amended judgment consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

On December 27, 2024, the court vacated the August 13, 2024 judgment and entered an amended judgment consistent with the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement as stated in the parties’ December 26, 2024 joint stipulation. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the December 27, 2024 judgment: (i) Elysium must pay a total of $2,650,000 to ChromaDex to resolve the California Action and the Appeals (the “Settlement Payment”); (ii) the $2,650,000 Settlement Payment shall be paid in two equal installments of $1,325,000 each, the first of which was to be paid on or before December 31, 2024 (the “First Installment”), and the second of which is to be paid on or before March 31, 2025 (the “Second Installment”); (iii) if Elysium fails to timely pay either installment of the Settlement Payment, ChromaDex shall be entitled to recover from Elysium reasonable attorney’s fees and interest. The December 27, 2024 judgment also provides that the district court shall retain jurisdiction of the California Action until April 30, 2025 for the purposes of enforcing the terms of the December 27, 2024 judgment and the Settlement Agreement.

On December 27, 2024, ChromaDex received from Elysium payment of the First Installment in the amount of $1,325,000, which ChromaDex recorded as a recovery of credit losses within general and administrative expense in its Consolidated Statements of Operations. On December 30, 2024, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties filed with the Ninth Circuit a stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss the pending Appeals, and on December 31, 2024, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Appeals.

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 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. On August 14, 2023, Elysium filed a reply in support of its motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 7, 2023, ChromaDex filed a petition for writ of certiorari. On October 16, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the petition. On March 25, 2024, the Court granted Elysium’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 9, 2024, the Court entered a stipulated schedule and procedure for resolving the amount of fees and costs. On May 23, 2024, Elysium filed its opening brief. On June 6, 2024, ChromaDex filed its response brief. On June 13, 2024, Elysium filed its reply brief. On August 20, 2024, the Court issued a ruling on the parties’ disputes regarding the amount of fees and costs and instructed the parties to meet and confer about the next steps in light of the ruling. On October 1, 2024, the parties submitted a joint motion for entry of judgment. On October 28, 2024, the court issued its final judgement resolving the amount of fees and costs granting $9.2 million, plus judgment interest on this amount calculated at a rate of 5.02% compounded annually on any unpaid balance for the period from March 25, 2024, until ChromaDex pays the total sum owed. On December 4, 2024, ChromaDex filed an unopposed motion in the district court to approve bond and stay enforcement under Rule 62. On December 6, 2024, the Court granted the motion. On November 25, 2024, ChromaDex appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 26, 2025, ChromaDex filed its opening appeal brief. Elysium’s response brief is currently due on April 7, 2025. In connection with the Court's current ruling and the Company’s filed appeal, management has assessed that it is reasonably possible a contingent liability will be incurred. If the Company is successful in its appeal, no liability would be incurred. The Company believes the Court abused its discretion in granting the award. However, if the Company is not successful, the Company may be liable for the aggregate amount sought by Elysium, which, inclusive of ChromaDex’s estimates for post-judgment interest through the anticipated appeal, is approximately $10.4 million. As of December 31, 2024, the Company has not recorded an accrual for this matter, as the ultimate resolution remains uncertain.

(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.

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.