29 October 2024 Sean Mosby 2246 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 A Day in the Life of a Learning Disability and Nursing Expert Witness DA (Whether to replace a Single Joint Expert), Re [2026] EWCOP 7 (T2) Expert evidence in a vacuum of facts and startling use of Smart Glasses by the claimant Kamran Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 149 UPDATE: New Forensic Science Regulator guidance for declaring compliance with the code of practice 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.