Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 533 (Pat) (08 March 2024)

Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 533 (Pat) (08 March 2024)

The appointment of a scientific adviser without expert evidence is inappropriate and contrary to authority in a case where technical disputes are likely to arise. Expert evidence is required to address technical aspects in dispute, and the court cannot be satisfied that no significant technical issues will arise at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 533 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Vanessa Hill; Defendant: Touchlight Genetics Limited; Defendant: Touchlight IP Limited; Defendant: Touchlight DNA Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Patent Entitlement Dispute / Second Case Management Conference (cmc)
Outcome
Permission for expert evidence granted; application for scientific adviser without expert evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Patent Entitlement, Expert Evidence, Scientific Adviser, Biotechnology Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Entitlement Expert Evidence Scientific Adviser Biotechnology Patents

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Vanessa Hill

Claimant

Touchlight Genetics Limited

Defendant

Touchlight IP Limited

Defendant

Touchlight DNA Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Entitlement Dispute / Second Case Management Conference (cmc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should appoint a scientific adviser or order the exchange of expert evidence
  2. 2 Appropriate procedure for resolving technical disputes in a patent entitlement case
  3. 3 Role and limits of scientific advisers versus expert witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of a scientific adviser without expert evidence is inappropriate and contrary to authority in a case where technical disputes are likely to arise. Expert evidence is required to address technical aspects in dispute, and the court cannot be satisfied that no significant technical issues will arise at trial. Therefore, permission for expert evidence is granted, limited to one technical expert per party in molecular biology, to address specified technical issues.

Court Disposition

Permission for expert evidence granted; application for scientific adviser without expert evidence refused.

Orders

  • Each party has permission to call one technical expert witness in molecular biology to address technical aspects of Issues 2, 3, and 6 from the Agreed List of Issues.
  • Experts to meet and seek to agree technical issues and prepare a joint statement for the court under CPR 35.12.