29 October 2024 Sean Mosby 1927 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 The expert's flawed understanding of the intermediary's role The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Limited [2025] EWHC 2486 (Comm) Forensic Science Regulator Guidance on Forensic Science Activities: Interpretation and Communication Why you must verify AI-generated content in your expert report Yodel Delivery Network Limited v Jacob Corlett & Ors [2025] EWHC 1435 (Ch) 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.