health information
Is it true that XanGo has a patent on the mangosteen fruit in its shell Drinking?
I heard from a Xango booth this weekend and the guy with whom I spoke said that Xango a patent, so that no other place in the world with a mangosteen beverage manufacture of the shell may have. The fact that only the inner fruit is legally for sale in other brands. That does not sound right. How can something that the patent is, of course? It is as if one has a patent on banana peels. No one can banana skins or be sued!
-
-
#2 written by oldtimekid 2 years ago
I think they were hyping it up a little more than is realistic.
They CAN have a patent on their formulation so that nobody can copy it, but that can’t prevent anyone from using the peel in their own formula. If they could, that would be like putting a patent on the wheel and suing when anything round started rolling without using their patent.
I’m sure the guy either totally misunderstood or he was blowing more smoke than he realized.
- Comment Feed for this Post
It is true that they have a patent on the whole fruit. Meaning that no one else can use a formula that includes the whole fruit puree. This includes the pericarp (skin), seeds, and main pulp. If you look at the ingredients of other mangosteen fruit supplements you will see they are extracts. They rehydrate the pericarp and extact the xanthones and then add the pulp. It is all in the formulation. It is the pericarp that has most of the xanthones in it.
I am a drinker and I have seen what it can do. I have also tried other brands and I did not enjoy the taste or have the same results.
I copied this from an internet document:
XanGo’s Patent Reexamination
In its May 16, 2005 statement, New Vision suggests that the Patent Office has completed the reexamination of XanGo’s patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,730,333) and that XanGo’s patent is no longer valid. This is reckless and incorrect. Those who understand the patent process can attest that the reexamination proceeding in the U.S. Patent Office is a lengthy process and did not conclude with the “final” action. Indeed, a “final” rejection is not fully upheld in the vast majority of reexamination proceedings.
A diagram of the reexamination process, which further refutes New Vision’s statement, is shown on the U.S. Patent Office web site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2201.htm.
XanGo remains confident in a favorable outcome from the reexamination proceeding. Most importantly, while the reexamination proceeding is ongoing, the U.S. courts recognize XanGo’s patent as valid and enforceable.