29 October 2024 Sean Mosby 1540 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 Read between the lines, judge John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70 Aspirin and haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome Dating non-accidental injuries Is bite mark evidence admissible? 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.