Ever been tempted to apply for summary judgment on the basis that an opponent’s expert’s evidence is not credible?
This is what happened in Corma Inc v Hegler Plastik GMBH  EWHC 2820 (Pat).
Depsite having read this Patent Court case I am still not quite sure how a device for producing a double-walled thermoplastic pipe with integral pipe bell works. The trouble was that neither did the Wisconsin professor the Claimant had instructed as its expert (so the Defendant contended).
The expert’s evidence had got into a tangle after the claims of the Claimant’s patent were amended in validity proceedings before the European Patent Office Board of Appeal. The tangle attracted the judge’s observation that he was not sure that the Professor’s “fifth report really faces up to the true scope of his evidence in the third and fourth reports”. Nevertheless, the application for summary judgment was dismissed. The judge needed to see the Professor in the box.
One suspects that the Defendant knew that its application was not likely to succeed. If the Defendant’s object was to get some form “early judicial evaluation” or make the Professor uncomfortable before he got into the witness box then it was “mission accomplished”.