29 October 2024 Sean Mosby 2959 Case Updates Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) by Sean Mosby Summary The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding that the primary duty of an expert witness is not to say anything that may damage the instructing party’s case if it can be avoided. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to the Judgment Share Print Tags 16. Criticism and Complaints06. Rules and Regulations11. Report Writing08. Working with Instructing Parties15. Giving Oral Evidence Related articles KS v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/64221/2024 Cleveland Potash Limited v The Honourable Mrs Ferelith Drummond & Ors [2026] EWHC 1182 (Ch) A Day in the Life of an Occupational Therapy Expert Witness Expert Report or MG11 form? Handling future work arising from an existing instruction through a third-party you no longer have a contractual relationship with Comments are only visible to subscribers.