29 October 2024 Sean Mosby 3160 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 A medical report to which the court gave little weight DLP Ltd v Coram UK Holding Ltd [2026] EWHC 2448 (IPEC) (25 September 2026) Information publicly available on the internet - 'Digital Open Source Information' A Day in the Life of an Oil and Commodities Expert Witness A substantial limit to its evidential value 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.