XANGO PATENT INVALID IN U.S. PATENT OFFICE FINAL ACTION


SCOTTSDALE, AZ – MAY 16, 2005. The U.S. Patent Office issued its

final written opinion rejecting all 81 claims in XanGo’s Patent

No 6,730,333. This action was taken despite multiple meetings

with XanGo’s in-house patent expert Steven Bean, it’s outside

patent law firm and the review of over thirty pages of memoranda

and supporting affidavits filed by XanGo LLC, a Lehi, UT company.

Specifically, a panel of three expert U.S. Patent Officers,

consisting of the primary examiner, a supervisor patent examiner

and a special program examiner, found that every one of XanGo’s

81 claims were unpatentable. The Patent Office’s rationale was

concise – basically that there is nothing novel or patentable in

adding several fruit juices together. The Patent Office also

rejected XanGo’s claim that they were the first to introduce

mangosteen juice into the market, specifically concluding:

“Thus, the rejection [of the entire patent] is proper. THIS

ACTION IS FINAL.” You may review the entirety of the rulings by

going to the office government Patent Application Information

Retrieval System at http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair.

After this site comes up, enter application No. 90/007,178, and

click on the image file wrapper tab, which will reveal an index

of the document history. Afterwards, click on Reexam Final

Rejection – 4/21/2005.



In May 2004, XanGo sued New Vision and subsequently its

subsidiary, Vemma, both Scottsdale, AZ companies, for patent

infringement. The Patent Office’s final action ruling dealt a

serious blow to XanGo’s infringement lawsuit. BK Boreyko,

President and CEO of New Vision and Vemma, stated, “You don’t

have to be a lawyer to understand that if they don’t have a

patent, then they don’t have a lawsuit for infringement. From the

beginning of this lawsuit, I have maintained two points. First,

that XanGo’s patent would be invalidated because you can’t patent

fruit juices. Second, even assuming their patent was enforceable,

New Vision’s and Vemma’s mangosteen juice product does not

infringe on their patent. It has always been my opinion that this

lawsuit is not about patent infringement. Rather, XanGo is

frustrated and embarrassed that New Vision and Vemma have

produced superior mangosteen juice products into the marketplace.

The independent test results don’t lie. Our product contains a

full spectrum of natural xanthones derived from mangosteen and

pericarp extract. In fact, it takes 14 bottles of XanGo to equal

the xanthone content of one bottle of our product. It really is

that simple. XanGo should never have put so much emphasis on

their patent or the fact that they will be the only company

selling mangosteen juice. Their credibility will be severely

questioned. The bottom line is that New Vision and Vemma will

always sell a mangosteen juice product and my R&D team will

always make sure it’s the best.”



By contrast, the lawsuit filed by Morinda (now Tahitian Noni)

against XanGo and a number of its top officers who were formerly

Morinda employees, is moving forward. Contrary to the false

rumors being circulated by XanGo that this case has no merit, the

law firm currently representing Morinda in the XanGo litigation,

Ray Quinney & Nebeker, is one of the most reputable law firms in

the State of Utah and has been compiling evidence for over 12

months. Its lawyers have been featured in Utah Business

Magazine's "Utah's Legal Elite" and included in the publication

of "The Best Lawyers in America 2005-2006". In the lawsuit filed

by Morinda, it alleges XanGo and its top officers stole Morinda’s

property interest in mangosteen while they were employed by

Morinda. The company claims that all intellectual property rights

in the XanGo juice product (s), and all intellectual property

rights stemming therefrom, are the exclusive property of Morinda.

Morinda therefore seeks a constructive trust be imposed upon all

assets, corporate opportunities, benefits and profits unlawfully

obtained by XanGo. The result, if Morinda prevails, is that all

XanGo assets will be transferred to Morinda. Multiple

depositions are currently under way of XanGo’s alleged “partner,”

Wild Flavor, which will shed light on whether Morinda can prove

its past officers/employees were working on XanGo business while

still employees of Morinda. Since public records show that the

trademark of XanGo was applied for approximately five months

before these officers were terminated from Morinda, this should

be an interesting case to follow over the next 12 to 16 months.

Wild Flavors has already confirmed it is not “partners” with

XanGo, as XanGo has repeatedly represented.



We are pleased that with the recent U.S. Patent Office ruling, we

can all return our focus to the important issues for free

competition in the market place, such as who has the better

quality product, greater credibility and more stable future. New

Vision has a ten-year history of success, honesty and top quality

products backed by independent testing results. You can judge

XanGo’s credibility for yourself based on the developments during

its brief history and pending litigation.