ChromaDex Corp. (CDXC)

[Millstone]

Sure seems like a deliberate miscast of the facts on the part of Elysium's legal team. I'd have to think that it was the lawyers that came up with this defense since it is so out of the norm (i.e., crazy) and appears like grasping at straws.

It does seem that, since per the Agreement Elysium's use of the trademark(s) is entirely optional and does not have any bearing on the royalty, the argument that there is a royalty directly tied to the use of the trademark(s) is completely obliterated. Further, any lawyer making the argument would have had to have read through the Agreement and: (i) deliberately overlooked the multiple references to "may" rather than "shall" or "must"; (ii) as you mentioned in your post on your website, disregarded that a patent is a legal monopoly, and has the express intention of giving the patent author the right to profit (or not) from their invention. Even if the trademark were required on the packaging (not unusual or unwarranted), it does not further restrict any party more than the patent itself (as a legal monopoly).

Are Rule 11 Sanctions rare?