A good expert witness can make the difference between winning and losing a case. So can a bad one. WIPR looks at how to pick the best possible person.
In patent cases, the idea of an ‘expert’ witness can seem like a contradiction. The court commonly requires the expertise of a ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’, and not necessarily of a genuine leader in the specific field. Not only that, but this ordinary skill must be retrospective. Patents that are subject to litigation may be several years old.
It is no use employing an expert on the current state of the art if the court is concerned with the state of the art of a decade ago. In both jury and bench trials, the decision-makers (the jury or the judge) are unlikely to be experts in the particular technical field, so highly complex product analyses may not have the desired effect.
Yet, for attorneys, in-depth and current expertise may be vital criteria for selecting an expert, not least because the attorneys themselves may not understand the technical make-up of the patent at issue.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on firstname.lastname@example.org.
Expert witnesses, patent cases, Intervet