tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post2378081613549721057..comments2023-08-17T14:09:24.945+01:00Comments on PatLit: the patent litigation weblog: On the Role of Scientific Advisers: Transparency and ExpectationsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-52080955570778687702016-05-05T11:33:50.739+01:002016-05-05T11:33:50.739+01:00Very interesting post. Thanks for the writing and...Very interesting post. Thanks for the writing and the publishing.<br /><br />I remember a case long ago at the Supreme Court (BGH) in Karlsruhe about the validity of the patent on the catheter tool for transluminal balloon angioplasty of cardiac blood vessels. The BGH (lacking "technical" judges) appointed its own technical expert and I remember being appalled by his unimpressive credentials and the content of his written report to the court, which the court of course followed. Are things still like that today, in patent validity cases in Karlsruhe?<br /><br />It is said that the court struggles to find a person equipped to be a competent court-appointed technical expert, who is not already contractually linked to any of the litigating parties. I imagine that problem can only get worse.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.com