29 October 2024 Sean Mosby 1016 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 06. Rules and Regulations11. Report Writing08. Working with Instructing Parties15. Giving Oral Evidence16. Criticism and Complaints Related articles An expert report that is entirely equivocal on the key issues is of little assistance to the court The diagnosis hang-up and cardiological manifestations of PTSD Setting The Goal Posts in Expert Determination Cases For “Manifest Error” Exceptions Expert suggests Google would probably give the court a better answer than him A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness 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.