Patent decision
- BL number
- O/0541/25
- Concerning rights in
- WO/2021/245607 A1, EP 4161260 A1, US2023/0189809 A1 and any other applications derived from the international application
- Hearing Officer
- Dr J E Porter
- Decision date
- 17 June 2025
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Okipa Ltd and John Russell Clearwater V Aaron Tindall
- Provisions discussed
- Patents Act 1977 section 12
- Keywords
- Entitlement
- Related Decisions
- O/0410/24
Summary
The dispute concerned international and other applications in the name of Aaron Tindall, relating to a composition for eliminating or reducing undesired plant growth which includes artificial sweetener.
The claimants said that Dr Clearwater is the original inventor of at least part of the inventive concept, having developed it around 2002. They said that he is the inventor of the use of sodium saccharin as a natural herbicide, specifically the combination of sodium saccharin with an adjuvant, and that he shared technical details of the invention with Mr Tindall and instructed him regarding trials. They also said that Dr Clearwater retained his rights arising from joint inventorship up until 2022, when he assigned his rights to Okipa.
1 The defendant said that he was entirely responsible for devising the invention in December 2018, when he independently conducted trials of an aqueous solution of saccharin and an organosilicone penetrant.
Applying Yeda, the hearing officer first identified the nature of the inventive concept, and then identified who contributed to it.
He held that the inventive concept was a composition for eliminating or reducing undesired plant growth comprising a liquid carrier, at least one artificial sweetener or sugar alcohol or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof, and a penetrant. He also concluded that a penetrant is a type of adjuvant, but the term “adjuvant” is wider than “penetrant”.
In order to determine who contributed to the inventive concept, the hearing officer reviewed written and oral evidence concerning Dr Clearwater’s work in 2002-3, the initial collaboration involving Mr Tindall, Dr Clearwater and Mr Dennis McCarthy which started around 2015, and various events, meetings and trials from 2016 onwards - concerning both a hot foam herbicide and a cold water formulation.
He concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the key trial devising the invention was one referred to by Mr Tindall in an email of 12 January 2019. Some subsequent trials and discussions with Dr Clearwater took place but it was not proved that his involvement amounted to a role in devising the inventive concept.
The hearing officer considered correspondence between the parties and the patent attorney concerning the drafting and filing of the patent applications, and a related set of patent applications which were subject to entitlement proceedings before the comptroller in 2024. These did not change his findings regarding what had taken place.
Mr Tindall was solely entitled to the applications.
Full decision O/0541/25 
504Kb
