InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 3
Posts 219
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/06/2016

Re: tredenwater2 post# 2857

Saturday, 12/22/2018 5:18:11 PM

Saturday, December 22, 2018 5:18:11 PM

Post# of 3063
That's a good point about Nestle. If they thought ChromaDex's IP was at risk, they could at LEAST have waited four weeks to hear what the PTAB says -- maybe save $4M. But probably instead they decided that the '807 patent isn't even before the PTAB, and ChromaDex's IP looks okay and/or Elysium's invalidity story doesn't sound great.

Alternately, Nestle might have decided that Elysium's strategy made legal sense -- just set up your own supply chain and patents-B-dammed -- but apparently they did not see it that way.

As for P&G, I think their deal was that they were entitled to an exclusive if they could figure out a way to make NR stable in a lotion, which is what P&G patented, but P&G had sole responsibility for solving that problem, which they apparently did not solve, and so NR for sun protection and skin-lightening will have to wait until someone solves that problem.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CDXC News