Dr Vanessa Hill v Touchlight Genetics Limited

Dr Vanessa Hill v Touchlight Genetics Limited

The Court ruled that the appointment of a scientific adviser without expert evidence is insufficient and unsatisfactory for addressing technical issues in this case, given the likelihood of technical disputes arising at trial. Permission for each party to call one technical expert witness in molecular biology was granted to address technical aspects of the agreed issues and to educate the Court on the technology.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Vanessa Hill; Defendant: Touchlight Genetics Limited; Defendant: Touchlight IP Limited; Defendant: Touchlight DNA Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Patent Entitlement Dispute / Second Case Management Conference (cmc)
Outcome
Permission granted for each party to call one technical expert witness; scientific adviser not appointed.
Legal Topics
Patent Entitlement, Expert Evidence, Scientific Adviser, Biotechnology, Limitation Period, Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, Director's Duty
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Entitlement Expert Evidence Scientific Adviser Biotechnology Limitation Period Estoppel +2 more

Case Brief

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 5 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 Determination of patent entitlement under sections 37(1) and 12(1) of the Patents Act 1977
  3. 3 Assessment of technical disputes regarding inventive concepts and disclosures

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ruled that the appointment of a scientific adviser without expert evidence is insufficient and unsatisfactory for addressing technical issues in this case, given the likelihood of technical disputes arising at trial. Permission for each party to call one technical expert witness in molecular biology was granted to address technical aspects of the agreed issues and to educate the Court on the technology.

Court Disposition

Permission granted for each party to call one technical expert witness; scientific adviser not appointed.

Orders

  • Each party has permission to call one technical expert witness in molecular biology to address technical aspects arising in the context of Issues 2, 3, and 6 from the Agreed List of Issues and to assist with educating the court on the technology and to understand what is disclosed in technical documents.
  • Experts to meet and seek to agree technical issues and prepare a statement for the Court setting out issues agreed and disagreed, with reasons.