16 October 2026 Sean Mosby 66 Case Updates DLP Ltd v Coram UK Holding Ltd [2026] EWHC 2448 (IPEC) (25 September 2026) by Sean Mosby Summary 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. Learning points Learning points for instructing parties An expert can be incorrect without being biased or an advocate. Ensure that you have convincing evidence before criticising an expert’s independence or competence. Expending significant resources to support ad hominem attacks is unlikely to be money well spent. Learning points for experts Your expertise and a complete understanding of your duties are your best defences against attacks on your independence and competence. Your past actions may be used as the basis for an attack. You should take the time to consider if there are any potential bases for these types of attacks and, if so, how you would respond should they arise. Avoid using adjectives like “strange” to describe the views of the opposing expert. 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 PatentIndependence16. Criticism and ComplaintsCV06. Rules and Regulations11. Report Writing15. Giving Oral EvidencePriority Date Related articles 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 The mandatory duty on range of opinion Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2026 Switch article EWI awards three Honorary Fellowships Previous Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.