The Claimant asserted that the Defendant had infringed their patent for an electric shower-waster pump and control unit. The trial related to liability only. Both sides criticised the other’s expert. The Judge rejected these criticisms noting that, while he reached conclusions that differed from the experts in various places, he did not consider either expert to be unreliable or that their evidence generally should be discounted.

This was a significant and well reported patent case which was determined in the Intellectual Property List within the High Court last autumn.   

The technical aspects of the case required significant expert input from the panel involved.  The cross-examinations performed by leading Counsel for the parties were lengthy and complicated.  This led to confusion over what evidence was given when the transcripts were re-visited on subsequent trial days. The case shows how consideration should be given to experts who are being cross-examined so not to overload them with questions and information on the stand.

Relevance:      Psychiatry

                        Psychology
 

Topics:            Nervous shock

                        Secondary victims      

Relevance: Civil procedure in Scotland

                        Patent cases

Topics: Expert declaration

            Conflict of interest