That link does not resolve for me, but I suspect you have drawn my attention to an October 26 filing of a joint civil case management statement that includes this language near the end:
"The parties are unable at this time to determine the likelihood of settlement, but have committed to engage in good faith efforts to resolve their disputes. Because the issues between them are broader than those raised in this litigation, the parties believe a direct dialogue may be productive, but both parties are willing to participate in this Court's mediation program."
It does represent positive statements different from what we have seen in the CDCal, but I would not read too much into it, because litigants are required to make good faith efforts to settle their disputes, this is a new forum, and nobody has backed away from their core claims.
My view is that the thing Elysium was trying to do did not work, and although the courts are willing to give Elysium a hearing (indeed, in CDCal, the court is exceedingly indulgent), the courts are not likely to trash ChromaDex's business on Elysium's behalf.
So it would make sense to me if Elysium were willing to look for a graceful way out.
It is certainly a good thing that both SDNY disputes are before the same judge. Too bad we can't consolidate CDCal in SDNY, too, because it's not like the CDCal staff cares enough to actually read the documents.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
