29 October 2024 Sean Mosby 295 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 05. Rules and Regulations10. Report Writing07. Working with Instructing Parties14. Giving Oral Evidence15. Criticism and Complaints Related articles Expert appoints herself as social worker, psychologist, therapist and judge T (Fresh Evidence on Appeal), Re [2024] EWCA Civ 1384 Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve? When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert. The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work 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.