Forensic examination is one of the most important forms of evidence in arbitration proceedings. Whenever a dispute involves technical, scientific or other specialized issues, courts rely on expert opinions to establish facts that fall outside their own expertise. As a result, parties often view an expert opinion as evidence that may determine the outcome of the dispute.

Expert evidence is particularly important in intellectual property cases, including patent infringement, copyright disputes and business reputation claims, where many factual issues cannot be resolved without specialized knowledge. In such cases, an expert opinion often becomes one of the key pieces of evidence before the court.

However, Russian procedural law does not give expert opinions predetermined evidentiary value. Although expert findings may significantly influence the court’s assessment of the facts, they are not binding. Judges must evaluate expert opinions together with all other evidence in the case and may depart from an expert’s conclusions where there are sufficient legal and factual grounds to do so.

This article examines the role of expert opinions in arbitration proceedings, the grounds on which courts may critically assess expert findings and the principles developed in judicial practice where expert conclusions do not ultimately determine the outcome of the case.

Expert opinion as a type of evidence

Under Article 64 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, an expert opinion is one of the forms of evidence on which an arbitration court may rely when establishing the facts relevant to a dispute. An expert examination is appointed where resolving factual issues requires specialized scientific, technical or other professional knowledge beyond the court’s expertise.

This is particularly common in intellectual property disputes, including patent and copyright cases, where technical or scientific issues often play a central role. The expert’s task is to examine specific factual matters within the scope of their expertise and provide reasoned answers to the questions put before them. An expert may not resolve legal issues, assess the lawfulness of the parties’ conduct or determine the outcome of the dispute.

These functions belong exclusively to the court. Even where an expert opinion is available, the court must evaluate it together with all other evidence, assessing its completeness, consistency and reasoning before deciding what weight, if any, it should be given.

For this reason, an expert opinion should not be viewed as decisive evidence. Although it may have a significant influence on the court’s findings, its conclusions may be challenged by the parties and, where appropriate, rejected by the court.

Grounds for critical evaluation of an expert opinion

No predetermined evidentiary value

Under Article 86 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, an expert opinion must be assessed together with all other evidence in the case.

This principle is reflected in Paragraph 12 of Resolution No. 23 of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation dated April 4, 2014, which makes it clear that an expert opinion has no predetermined evidentiary value. Like any other evidence, it is evaluated under Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code, and the court must explain in its judgment why it accepts or rejects the expert’s conclusions.

Accordingly, even a well-reasoned expert opinion does not determine the outcome of the dispute. Its evidentiary value depends on the court's overall assessment of all the facts and evidence.

Requirements for an expert opinion

When appointing and conducting a forensic examination, courts apply both the Arbitration Procedure Code and Federal Law No. 73-FZ On State Forensic Expert Activity in the Russian Federation.

Under Article 8 of that law, an expert must carry out an objective, comprehensive and scientifically sound examination using methods that fall within their professional competence. The conclusions must be supported by reasoning that allows both the court and the parties to verify how they were reached.

Article 25 further specifies the required contents of an expert opinion, including information about the expert, the objects examined, the questions addressed, the methods applied, the course of the examination and the reasoning underlying the conclusions.

Compliance with these requirements is essential because it enables the court to assess the reliability and credibility of the expert’s findings.

When courts may question an expert opinion

A court may attach limited weight to an expert opinion – or reject it altogether – if there are legitimate doubts about its reliability, completeness or reasoning.

In practice, this may occur where:

• The expert examined incomplete case materials;
• The wrong objects were examined;
• The methodology was questionable or insufficiently explained;
• The report contains internal inconsistencies;
• The conclusions are not supported by the analysis; or
• The expert exceeded the limits of their professional competence by addressing legal rather than technical issues.

Courts may also question an expert opinion where it conflicts with other evidence or lacks sufficient reasoning to allow its conclusions to be independently verified.

Where such deficiencies exist, the court is entitled to treat the report critically and decline to rely on it as sufficient evidence.

Additional and repeat examinations

Russian procedural law provides mechanisms for addressing deficiencies in an expert opinion.

Under Article 87 of the Arbitration Procedure Code, an additional examination may be ordered where the original opinion is unclear or incomplete. It may be carried out either by the same expert or by another specialist.

A repeat examination may be ordered where there are justified doubts about the correctness of the original opinion or where different experts have reached conflicting conclusions. In such cases, the examination must be conducted by another expert or panel of experts.

These procedural safeguards reinforce an important principle: expert opinions are subject to judicial scrutiny. If their reliability or completeness is reasonably questioned, the court may seek further expert evidence rather than treating the original report as conclusive.

Approaches in judicial practice

Judicial practice consistently confirms that an expert opinion, despite its importance, does not have predetermined evidentiary value. Courts assess not only an expert’s conclusions but also the methodology used, the completeness of the examination, compliance with procedural requirements, and the consistency of the findings with the other evidence in the case.

Where an expert opinion is well reasoned, internally consistent and based on reliable methodology, courts often treat it as one of the key pieces of evidence. This is particularly true where the parties raise no substantiated objections to either the examination procedure or the expert's conclusions. An example is the ruling of the Intellectual Property Court of November 6, 2024, in case No. A43-38197/2022.

However, where there are justified doubts about the reliability or completeness of an expert opinion, courts may order a repeat examination. This may be necessary where experts reach conflicting conclusions, where the report contains significant methodological flaws or where its reasoning is incomplete. Such an approach was taken, for example, in the ruling of the Eighteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal of July 9, 2025, in case No. A07-23444/2022.

Although less common, courts may also decline to rely on an expert opinion altogether. This usually occurs where the report contains substantial deficiencies or where its conclusions are contradicted by the overall body of evidence. In such cases, the court must explain why it considers the expert's findings unpersuasive. An example is the ruling of the Intellectual Property Court of July 20, 2022, in case No. A40-29590/2020.

Importantly, courts are not required to accept or reject an expert opinion in its entirety. They may rely on particular findings while rejecting others, provided that their assessment is properly reasoned and supported by the evidence.

Conclusion

Forensic examination remains one of the most important forms of evidence in arbitration proceedings, particularly in disputes involving complex technical or scientific issues. At the same time, Russian procedural law does not treat expert opinions as binding evidence.

Courts must assess expert findings together with all other evidence in the case. Where there are legitimate concerns about the methodology, reasoning or completeness of an expert report, they may critically evaluate its conclusions, order an additional or repeat examination, or reach a different conclusion altogether.

Ultimately, the outcome of a dispute depends not on the existence of an expert opinion itself, but on its quality, reliability and consistency with the overall body of evidence. An expert opinion may significantly influence the court's decision, but it never replaces the court's independent assessment of the facts.