29 October 2024 Sean Mosby 2481 Case Updates Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) bySean 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 Experts who rise above the fray and fully discharge their duties to assist the Court Praise for experts gives insight into what makes oral evidence credible Car-Wizard Limited v Vixen Surface Treatments Limited [2026] EWHC 685 (Ch) Unregulated Experts in Family Court Children Proceedings Working with Expert Witnesses in Clinical Negligence Claims: Practical Considerations and Common Pitfalls Switch article How not to use AI in expert evidence Previous Article Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.