Florida Jury Awards $41.2 Million to Super Vision in Technology Theft Case

PRESS RELEASE

ORLANDO, Fla., Sept. 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ —

Super Vision International Inc. (Nasdaq: SUPVA), a world leader in the
manufacture of fiber optic and LED lighting, announced today that it was
awarded a jury verdict in the amount of $41.2 million against the following
individuals and companies: Samson Mong Wu, Jack Caruso, David Winkler, Susan
Sumida Wu, Debbie Wu, Thomas Wu, Ruby Lee, James Lee, Optic-Tech International
Corporation, Shanghai Qiaolong Optic-Tech International Company, Ltd.(P.R.C.),
Shanghai Qiaolong Optic-Tech Industrial Co., Ltd. (P.R.C.), Marsam Trading
Corporation, Marsam Trading Corporation (HK) Ltd., Cosmic Corporation Ltd
(HK)., and Travis Pochintesta. The jury found the defendants liable on all
counts including fraud, civil theft, violations of Florida’s RICO act, civil
conspiracy, misappropriations of Super Vision’s technology and destruction of
evidence. Among the witnesses testifying in the case was a Special Agent with
the FBI who testified that a phone call monitored by the FBI, Jack Caruso was
overheard stating that he was paid $1.4 million by the Wu Family for
information that later became a U.S. patent filed on their behalf. The
original patent information was sent at 5 a.m. by Mr. Caruso from Super
Vision’s fax machine while Mr. Caruso was still employed by Super Vision and
contained drawings of Super Vision’s machinery and descriptions of its fiber
optic cable manufacturing process.

The verdict came after years of investigation and litigation including
reports from private investigators retained by Super Vision confirming that
equipment stolen from Super Vision’s laboratory as well as information
including customer lists, vendor lists, chemical formulations and blueprints
and diagrams of Super Vision’s plastic fiber optic cabling manufacturing
process were illegally obtained by the above stated defendants for the
purposes of duplication and sale of Super Vision’s product line. A six-member
jury of three men and three women awarded the verdict for damages inflicted on
Super Vision for the theft of Super Vision’s technology as well as punitive
damages for willful misconduct by the defendants. The jury ordered the amount
of $33.1 million for compensatory and punitive damages. Punitive damages for
civil theft were also ordered for the amount of $8.1 million.

Prior to trial, by order of Judge Kirkwood on November 18, 1999, Super
Vision received an injunction against the above mentioned defendants enjoining
them from future sales of fiber optic products utilizing Super Vision’s
technology and finding that the defendants as a group consisted of an
enterprise under Florida’s Racketeering Influenced Corruption “RICO” act. In
August, 21 of 2002, Judge Thomas Spencer found the defendants in contempt of
court, finding that the parties had violated the Injunction by hiding
equipment stolen from Super Vision and transferred fiber optic inventory from
their warehouse in Miami to China. Super Vision had a proprietary interest in
this inventory which also constituted potential evidence in the case. The
Court further found the defendants had shredded documents and destroyed other
potential evidence in this case. The majority of individual defendants had
refused to answer any questions throughout the last two-and-a-half years of
litigation, by virtue of asserting their Constitutional 5th Amendment
privilege, which they continued to do throughout trial.

Super Vision International, Inc. founder and CEO Brett Kingstone stated:
“Although I am very grateful to the members of the Jury who were willing to
sacrifice three weeks of their time to award us with such a substantial
decision I would like to caution our shareholders and investors not to count
this huge award as collectible. Although the defendants have vast resources,
which they used to pay huge sums to individuals to steal information from our
firm, they have since transferred all their financial assets outside the
United States and the fact that they are not responding to any questions will
make this judgment potentially very difficult and costly to collect.” Mr.
Kingstone further stated that: “It is shameful that while invoking the
5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States these people were
routinely violating overseas the very same U.S. laws that they were using to
protect themselves at trial. We need to re-examine our laws to see to it that
the victims are ultimately afforded as much protection as the criminals. It is
impossible for U.S. companies to compete when they have to deal with overseas
competitors that don’t play by the same set of rules that we do.”

John Fisher and Joseph Tamborello of the Orlando law firm of Fisher
Rushmer Werrenrath Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, P.A. served as counsel on the
case. Super Vision has retained Madison B. McClellan of the Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Finney, Lewis, McManus, Watson & Sperando of Stuart, Florida to
represent the company against the patent attorneys, the Orlando law firm of
Allen, Dyer Appelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A., who assisted the Wu Family in
the transfer of Super Vision’s technology.

Certain of the above statements contained in this press release are
forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties.
Such forward-looking statements are within the meaning of that term in Section
27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Reference is made to Super Vision’s filings under the Securities
Exchange Act for factors that could cause actual results to differ materially.
Super Vision undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any
forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future
events, or otherwise. Readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking
statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and
uncertainties, and that actual results may differ materially from those
indicated in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors.
Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking
statements.