header-logo header-logo

Confidentiality too far?

01 June 2018 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7795 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail
nlj_7795_pamplin

Chris Pamplin considers the question of expert confidentiality & trade secrets

  • An illustration of the heavy weight of confidentiality that experts often carry, particularly in cases involving subject matter of a commercially sensitive nature.

When litigation involves sensitive commercial information it poses particular problems with expert confidentiality. On occasion, the court and parties might consider that the expert’s standard obligations and duties are insufficient.

Such a situation may arise in cases dealing with experimental processes and patents, particularly the experiments carried out in the ‘work-up’ to the final outcome.

In Mayne Pharma Limited & Another v Debiopharm SA & Another [2006] EWHC 164 (Pat), the claimants sought to invalidate four patents relating to a drug used in the treatment of colorectal cancer. The claimants alleged that one of the patents (which defined a method of preparing the compound under conditions within a specified pH range) was anticipated by a piece of prior art. The claimants filed a notice of the prior art and a notice of experiments they themselves had carried

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll