The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has published a new consolidation of the Criminal Procedure Rules and an accompanying guide. The new Rules will...
Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

The Transparency and Open Justice Board has published its final Key Objectives and its response to its Public Engagement on the proposed Key...
A fundamentally flawed report A fundamentally flawed report

A fundamentally flawed report

The parties unanimously agreed that the report of a Court appointed expert was fundamentally flawed, could not be relied upon, and a new psychologist...
Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and... Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ('Committee') is consulting on proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 77 and the Practice...
Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk

Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk

Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in...
Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC... Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC...

Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC...

The barrister for the Claimant was unable to explain to the court's satisfaction why she had cited several non-existent cases in pleadings. The...
A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

Susan Jones, founder of SJ Consultancy, has been a town planning consultant for over 40 years. As an Expert Witness, she provides evidence at public...
Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

In the 13th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at five long-standing policy issues that have had significant developments recently: (1)...
A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

Dr. Rohit Seth is trained in Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hair Transplant Surgery with over 20 years of surgical experience. A practicing...
A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness

Ryan Shields is a digital forensics expert who has worked in the police and private sector. Here, he explains why he is passionate about using his...
Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

In the 12th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. Joint Statements are critical documents in any...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Dr Vanessa Hill v Touchlight Genetics Limited [2024] EWHC 533 (Pat)
Sean Mosby 2337

Dr Vanessa Hill v Touchlight Genetics Limited [2024] EWHC 533 (Pat)

bySean Mosby

The Case

The case involves a dispute over patent entitlement in the field of biotechnology. Dr Hill claims she is entitled to be a joint proprietor of some of Touchlight’s patents and patent applications as she had only assigned part of her inventions set out in the patent filings to Touchlight.

 

The dispute considered at this Case Management Conference was whether the court should appoint a scientific advisor (a ‘SA’, as Dr Hill contended) or order the exchange of expert evidence (as Touchlight contended). In determining the dispute, the judge considered the dividing line between the role of a SA and the role of expert evidence.

 

The Scientific Advisor

The Patent Court has power to appoint a SA under s.70(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR rule 35.15 to assist the court in proceedings under the 1949 and 1977 Patents Acts.

 

The appointment of a SA is relatively uncommon and only occurs in specific circumstances. In a short judgment on the utility and purpose of having a SA, Birss J ([2016] EWHC 881 (Pat)) noted that in the majority of patent cases the combined efforts of the legal teams and the expert witnesses are sufficient to ensure that the court understands the material on which the expert opinions are based and the reasons for them, “but experience in this case shows that sometimes the further step [of appointing a SA] is useful and proportionate.”

 

Touchlight provided the court with a spreadsheet showing all reported cases where a SA had been appointed from 1972 to 2016. These cases showed that:

 

  • Most SAs had been appointed to assist appeal courts when there had not been a SA at first instance,
  • The few cases of a SA at first instance were because the case was complex and the judge was not a Cat4/Cat5 patent judge,
  • In all cases where a SA was appointed, their role was to provide a tutorial or teach-in on the technology or explain the more technical material in a non-partisan way. It was not to address any issue in the proceedings, and
  • There was no case of a SA being appointed without there being expert evidence.

 

Submissions of the parties

Counsel for Dr Hill submitted that the court should direct the appointment of a SA and not any expert evidence as what mattered was Dr Hill’s subjective state of mind which is not the natural province of expert evidence. The SA could ensure that the court fully understood the complex technology.

 

Touchlight submitted that the appointment of a SA, but no expert, would be unprecedented and inappropriate, as well as contrary to the authorities. Expert evidence was required to address the matters in dispute, which was not the role of a SA. The Patents Court does not permit the role of experts to be usurped by a SA whose communications with the court take place in practice and are not subject to cross-examination. Further, Touchlight would not be able to respond to new technical points raised in Dr Hill’s cross-examination without the benefit of expert evidence.

 

The judge’s decision

The judge noted that there is a clear distinction between the roles of a SA and expert evidence. While the purpose of both is to educate the court in the relevant technology, “a SA is not there to address any technical disputes, that is the province of expert evidence, to the extent that expert evidence is appropriate and admissible.”  The SA is, therefore, not a substitute for expert evidence but a supplement to it, in the most technically difficult cases.

 

The assessments which the trial judge is likely to have to carry out in this case are highly likely to involve technical disputes, some of which may only emerge in the course of Dr Hill’s answers in cross-examination. If he directed a SA but no expert witness, it is unclear how such technical disputes would be resolved. The trial judge would inevitably be placed in the position of going to ask questions of the SA to help resolve the disputes, whilst avoiding having the SA address the issues in dispute.

 

The judge consequently found that “the appointment of a SA (without expert evidence) does not appear a sufficient or satisfactory way to address the technical issues in this case. He agreed with Touchlight’s submission that the appointment of a SA without expert evidence would be unprecedented, inappropriate and contrary to authority.  On that basis he gave permission for expert evidence and did not appoint a SA.

 

Learning points

  • The Patents Court has the power to appoint scientific advisors to assist the court in patent proceedings.
  • A Scientific Advisor is a supplement to expert evidence, in the most technically difficult patent cases, not a substitute for it.
  • As a SA cannot address any technical disputes, the court is likely to direct expert evidence where it anticipates that there will be technical disputes between the parties.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.