header-logo header-logo

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

Confidentiality too far?

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll