Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments The Company has an exclusive manufacturing arrangement for the supply of Nicotinamide Riboside Chloride (NRCL) with W.R. Grace & Co. -Conn. (Grace). On July 25, 2025, the Company executed a Sales Agreement (the “Grace Supply Agreement”) with Grace with an effective date of April 1, 2025. Grace holds patents related to the crystalline form of NR chloride that provide Grace with exclusive manufacturing rights for certain forms of NRCL. Pursuant to the Grace Supply Agreement, Grace supplies the Company with NRCL meeting specified quality and technical requirements as defined in a previously executed quality agreement dated March 22, 2024. In addition, Grace is prohibited from selling NRCL to third parties and must notify the Company of any new business inquiries relating to the purchase of NRCL. The Company is contractually obligated to purchase minimum quantities of NRCL during each year of the agreement term. The Grace Supply Agreement provides for an initial term through April 30, 2029, and will automatically renew for successive 12-month terms unless either party provides written notice of its intent not to renew. The Company is required to purchase a minimum quantity of NRCL during each year of the term. The Company provides rolling monthly forecasts of its anticipated purchase requirements for a 24-month period, of which the first 12 months are binding upon Grace’s acceptance. As of June 30, 2026, the Company is obligated to purchase approximately $20.5 million of NRCL through June 30, 2027. Deferred Consideration Obligation - Patent Assignment In December 2025, the Company entered into an Assignment Agreement (the “Assignment Agreement”) with Queen’s University Belfast (“QUB”) pursuant to which it acquired certain patent rights and assumed fixed, unconditional payment obligations through 2038 (the “Deferred Consideration Obligation”). The obligation is recorded at present value as of the acquisition date, with subsequent accretion recognized as interest expense over the term of the arrangement. The payment obligations consist of recurring annual payments beginning in 2026 and two fixed lump-sum payments due in 2034 and 2037. Certain payments are denominated in U.S. dollars, while others are denominated in British pound sterling and are subject to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. As of June 30, 2026, the carrying value of the Deferred Consideration Obligation was $5.7 million. Refer to Note 15 in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025 for additional information regarding the Assignment Agreement and related payment obligations. Legal Proceedings 1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration On February 3, 2026, Niagen Bioscience, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and certain federal officials in their official capacities. The lawsuit challenges the FDA response letters issued in September 2025 concerning the regulatory status of nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The complaint alleges that FDA’s interpretation of the statutory provisions governing dietary supplements is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Company seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order vacating the challenged portions of the FDA response letters and enjoining FDA from applying the interpretation at issue. On April 28, 2026, the FDA filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint on procedural grounds. The Company believes the government’s motion lacks merit and has opposed it. The Company’s complaint does not seek monetary damages. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. No accrual has been recorded in the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements related to this proceeding. 2. Elysium Health, Inc. Delaware - Patent Infringement Action On September 17, 2018, Niagen Bioscience 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. (Elysium). 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 Niagen Bioscience. 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. Niagen Bioscience filed an opposition brief on November 21, 2018 detailing the issues with Elysium’s motion to stay. In particular, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience 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 Niagen Bioscience’s prediction correct, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience 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 Niagen Bioscience’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, Niagen Bioscience served infringement contentions. Elysium filed a Second Amended Answer on July 10, 2020. On April 24, 2020, Niagen Bioscience moved for leave to amend the complaint to add Healthspan Research, LLC as a plaintiff. On May 5, 2020, Elysium filed its opposition to Niagen Bioscience’s motion for leave to amend and moved to dismiss Niagen Bioscience for alleged lack of standing. Niagen Bioscience 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 Niagen Bioscience for alleged lack of standing; and (ii) denying Niagen Bioscience’s motion for leave to amend. Niagen Bioscience filed a motion for reargument on December 29, 2020. Elysium filed a response to the motion for reargument on January 28, 2021. Niagen Bioscience 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. Niagen Bioscience 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 July 22, 2020 the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Chart and respective motions for claim construction. The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Brief on November 5, 2020. The Court held a Markman hearing on claim-construction issues on December 17, 2020. The Court entered a claim-construction ruling on January 5, 2021. Fact discovery closed on January 26, 2021. Opening expert reports were served on February 9, 2021. Responsive expert reports were served on March 9, 2021. Reply expert reports were served on March 30, 2021. Both parties filed dispositive and Daubert motions 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. Niagen Bioscience filed a notice of appeal on November 2, 2021. Niagen Bioscience’s opening brief was filed on February 2, 2022. Elysium’s response brief was filed on April 11, 2022. Niagen Bioscience’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, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience filed objections to Elysium’s bill of costs. On July 21, 2023, Niagen Bioscience filed a response to Elysium’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 28, 2023, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience 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 judgment 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 Niagen Bioscience pays the total sum owed. On December 4, 2024, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 26, 2025, Niagen Bioscience filed its opening appeal brief. Elysium filed its response brief on March 21, 2025. Niagen Bioscience filed its reply brief on April 25, 2025. The Federal Circuit heard the oral arguments on July 9, 2026, but no ruling has been made. 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 Niagen Bioscience’s estimates for post-judgment interest through the anticipated appeal, is approximately $10.4 million. As of June 30, 2026, the Company has not recorded an accrual for this matter, as the ultimate resolution remains uncertain. 3. Contingencies (A) In December 2025, a retail partner in Asia initiated a recall and withdrawal from sale of certain units of the Company’s Tru Niagen® Immune Daily Defense product in Hong Kong and Singapore, asserting that the product contained more than the labeled amount of 1,000 I.U. of Vitamin D3 and therefore did not comply with applicable local regulatory requirements. In February 2026, the retail partner alleged that the Company breached certain supply agreements in connection with this matter. In April 2026, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the retail partner to resolve the matter and support the continuation of the commercial relationship. This agreement resolves the previously disclosed contingency related to this matter. Under the terms of the arrangement, the parties agreed to resolve previously withheld receivables totaling approximately $1.3 million, which were fully collected by the Company during the second quarter of 2026. The arrangement also provides for the return of certain unsold inventory, the provision of replacement products to address product-related concerns, and the retail partner’s agreement not to pursue previously asserted claims related to loss of margin and goodwill. The Company has evaluated the accounting implications of the arrangement and determined that the resolution primarily represents the collection of previously recognized accounts receivable, together with product-related remediation and customary commercial activities. Accordingly, the arrangement does not result in a reduction of previously recognized revenue. Costs associated with replacement inventory and returned goods will be recognized in the appropriate period under the Company’s accounting policies. Subsequent to June 30, 2026, the Company received the returned inventory from the retail partner and began shipping replacement products in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The agreement also includes a limited ongoing obligation to provide replacement products for certain future customer returns and may give rise to obligations. These potential obligations are contingent in nature and are not currently considered probable or reasonably estimable. The Company continues to believe it has complied with its contractual obligations and applicable regulatory requirements. (B) On April 28, 2026, Thorne Research, Inc. and Thorne HealthTech, Inc. (collectively, “Thorne”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina against Niagen Bioscience, Inc., ChromaDex, Inc., and QUB (collectively, the “Defendants”). The complaint seeks, among other relief, a declaratory judgment that certain Thorne products do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,252,506 (the “’506 Patent”), as well as damages and injunctive relief based on claims of alleged tortious interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective business relations, and unfair competition under South Carolina law. Thorne’s complaint arises out of communications by Defendants asserting infringement of the ’506 Patent and the initiation of a patent enforcement proceeding through Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program relating to certain Thorne products. Thorne alleges that its products do not infringe the ’506 Patent and that Defendants’ actions were improper and caused harm to its business relationships and sales. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the action. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter due to the early stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements. On June 22, 2026, Thorne filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2026-00400) with the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the "PTAB") challenging claims 1-12 and 21-35 of the “’506 Patent, which relates to methods of preparing nicotinamide riboside and its derivatives. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on certain prior art references and contends that the challenged claims are not entitled to the July 29, 2013 priority date identified on the face of the ’506 Patent. The petition relates to the declaratory judgment action described above. The Company intends to oppose institution of the proceeding, including by filing a discretionary denial brief and a patent owner preliminary response. As of the date of this filing, the PTAB has not determined whether to institute inter partes review. The Company intends to vigorously defend the validity of the ’506 Patent. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the proceeding or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. (C) On May 28, 2026 and June 16, 2026, respectively, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company and ChromaDex, Inc. in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California and the Southern District of California alleging, among other things, that certain advertising and marketing claims relating to Tru Niagen® were false or misleading. The complaints seek monetary and equitable relief on behalf of proposed nationwide and state classes under various consumer protection and related laws. On July 17, 2026, the Court ordered the two cases be consolidated and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint on or before August 14, 2026. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these actions. At this early stage of both the proceedings, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these matters. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements. The Company will continue to monitor these matters and assess the need for any accrual or additional disclosure as the litigation progresses.

The Grace Supply Agreement provides for an initial term through April 30, 2029, and will automatically renew for successive 12-month terms unless either party provides written notice of its intent not to renew. The Company is required to purchase a minimum quantity of NRCL during each year of the term. The Company provides rolling monthly forecasts of its anticipated purchase requirements for a 24-month period, of which the first 12 months are binding upon Grace’s acceptance. As of June 30, 2026, the Company is obligated to purchase approximately $20.5 million of NRCL through June 30, 2027.

The payment obligations consist of recurring annual payments beginning in 2026 and two fixed lump-sum payments due in 2034 and 2037. Certain payments are denominated in U.S. dollars, while others are denominated in British pound sterling and are subject to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. As of June 30, 2026, the carrying value of the Deferred Consideration Obligation was $5.7 million. Refer to Note 15 in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025 for additional information regarding the Assignment Agreement and related payment obligations.

On February 3, 2026, Niagen Bioscience, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and certain federal officials in their official capacities. The lawsuit challenges the FDA response letters issued in September 2025 concerning the regulatory status of nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The complaint alleges that FDA’s interpretation of the statutory provisions governing dietary supplements is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Company seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order vacating the challenged portions of the FDA response letters and enjoining FDA from applying the interpretation at issue.

On September 17, 2018, Niagen Bioscience 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. (Elysium). 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 Niagen Bioscience. 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. Niagen Bioscience filed an opposition brief on November 21, 2018 detailing the issues with Elysium’s motion to stay. In particular, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience 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 Niagen Bioscience’s prediction correct, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience 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 Niagen Bioscience’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, Niagen Bioscience served infringement contentions. Elysium filed a Second Amended Answer on July 10, 2020.

On April 24, 2020, Niagen Bioscience moved for leave to amend the complaint to add Healthspan Research, LLC as a plaintiff. On May 5, 2020, Elysium filed its opposition to Niagen Bioscience’s motion for leave to amend and moved to dismiss Niagen Bioscience for alleged lack of standing. Niagen Bioscience 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 Niagen Bioscience for alleged lack of standing; and (ii) denying Niagen Bioscience’s motion for leave to amend. Niagen Bioscience filed a motion for reargument on December 29, 2020. Elysium filed a response to the motion for reargument on January 28, 2021. Niagen Bioscience 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. Niagen Bioscience 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. Niagen Bioscience filed a notice of appeal on November 2, 2021. Niagen Bioscience’s opening brief was filed on February 2, 2022. Elysium’s response brief was filed on April 11, 2022. Niagen Bioscience’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, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience filed objections to Elysium’s bill of costs. On July 21, 2023, Niagen Bioscience filed a response to Elysium’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 28, 2023, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience 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 judgment 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 Niagen Bioscience pays the total sum owed. On December 4, 2024, Niagen Bioscience 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, Niagen Bioscience appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 26, 2025, Niagen Bioscience filed its opening appeal brief. Elysium filed its response brief on March 21, 2025. Niagen Bioscience filed its reply brief on April 25, 2025. The Federal Circuit heard the oral arguments on July 9, 2026, but no ruling has been made. 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 Niagen Bioscience’s estimates for post-judgment interest through the anticipated appeal, is approximately $10.4 million. As of June 30, 2026, the Company has not recorded an accrual for this matter, as the ultimate resolution remains uncertain.

In April 2026, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the retail partner to resolve the matter and support the continuation of the commercial relationship. This agreement resolves the previously disclosed contingency related to this matter. Under the terms of the arrangement, the parties agreed to resolve previously withheld receivables totaling approximately $1.3 million, which were fully collected by the Company during the second quarter of 2026. The arrangement also provides for the return of certain unsold inventory, the provision of replacement products to address product-related concerns, and the retail partner’s agreement not to pursue previously asserted claims related to loss of margin and goodwill.

The Company has evaluated the accounting implications of the arrangement and determined that the resolution primarily represents the collection of previously recognized accounts receivable, together with product-related remediation and customary commercial activities. Accordingly, the arrangement does not result in a reduction of previously recognized revenue. Costs associated with replacement inventory and returned goods will be recognized in the appropriate period under the Company’s accounting policies. Subsequent to June 30, 2026, the Company received the returned inventory from the retail partner and began shipping replacement products in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

(B) On April 28, 2026, Thorne Research, Inc. and Thorne HealthTech, Inc. (collectively, “Thorne”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina against Niagen Bioscience, Inc., ChromaDex, Inc., and QUB (collectively, the “Defendants”). The complaint seeks, among other relief, a declaratory judgment that certain Thorne products do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,252,506 (the “’506 Patent”), as well as damages and injunctive relief based on claims of alleged tortious interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective business relations, and unfair competition under South Carolina law.

Thorne’s complaint arises out of communications by Defendants asserting infringement of the ’506 Patent and the initiation of a patent enforcement proceeding through Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program relating to certain Thorne products. Thorne alleges that its products do not infringe the ’506 Patent and that Defendants’ actions were improper and caused harm to its business relationships and sales. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the action. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter due to the early stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements.

The petition relates to the declaratory judgment action described above. The Company intends to oppose institution of the proceeding, including by filing a discretionary denial brief and a patent owner preliminary response. As of the date of this filing, the PTAB has not determined whether to institute inter partes review. The Company intends to vigorously defend the validity of the ’506 Patent. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the proceeding or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter.

(C) On May 28, 2026 and June 16, 2026, respectively, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company and ChromaDex, Inc. in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California and the Southern District of California alleging, among other things, that certain advertising and marketing claims relating to Tru Niagen® were false or misleading. The complaints seek monetary and equitable relief on behalf of proposed nationwide and state classes under various consumer protection and related laws. On July 17, 2026, the Court ordered the two cases be consolidated and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint on or before August 14, 2026. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these actions. At this early stage of both the proceedings, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these matters. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements. The Company will continue to monitor these matters and assess the need for any accrual or additional disclosure as the litigation progresses.