EPO: The EPO moves further towards oral proceedings via video conference

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EPO: The EPO moves further towards oral proceedings via video conference

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
Photo of white blank screen laptop, black coffee cup and coasters on the wooden working desk over blurred modern cafe background.

At the beginning of 1998, the EPO began allowing oral proceedings to be held as a video conference (OJ EPO 1997, 572). Video conferencing was only available for oral proceedings held before an examining division, i.e. prior to grant of the European patent. Oral proceedings before examining divisions are more suited to video conferencing as they are usually shorter and less complex than opposition oral proceedings, they are not open to the public, and only one party is present (the patent applicant).

Until now, there has not been an opportunity for oral proceedings to be held before the opposition division. However, in a Notice from the EPO dated April 14 2020, the EPO announced a pilot project in which oral proceedings could take place via video conference before opposition divisions.

Many of the requirements in the Notice for requesting and arranging oral proceedings via video conference in opposition proceedings remain the same as those established for examination oral proceedings. However, opposition oral proceedings will not be held via video conference if witnesses are to be heard, or if simultaneous interpretation between the official EPO languages is needed.

The pilot project allows examiners, parties to the proceedings and their representatives to participate from different locations. Exchange of written documents is to take place via email. Any technical problems which mean that parties cannot be adequately represented may result in a new summons to oral proceedings being issued.

Opposition oral proceedings are generally open to the public, according to Article 116(4) EPC. This, of course, poses issues when oral proceedings are held via video conference. The EPO will allow members of the public to watch opposition oral proceedings via a video link to a dedicated room at the EPO's offices. The opportunity will also be given for members of the public to connect to the video conference remotely. It remains to be seen whether these solutions are acceptable for those wishing to observe opposition oral proceedings.

This pilot project started on May 4 2020 and is due to run until April 30 2021.

Edward Farrington

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Value-added services give in-house counsel the satisfaction that they are getting more value for money, while law firms get the opportunity to win more work
A team at Boies Schiller Flexner is advising shoe company Kizik and parent company HandsFree Labs in the dispute
Nokia’s latest enforcement actions against Geely and Transsion joining Via LA’s AAC pool were also among the top talking points
Benjamin Kelly, the firm’s fifth IP partner hire in a little over one year, has experience in patent and trade secret disputes involving complex technologies
Half-year Talent Tracker data shows Pierson Ferdinand was among the most prolific hirers in the US, while in Europe, there has been a notable UPC swing
Exclusive data reveals in-house counsel want external legal advisers to build better client relationships and add value beyond routine work
Brett Sandford acted for Perplexity AI, which fended off the threat of a preliminary injunction to launch an AI-powered web browser
Stephen Yang joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why his role requires him to wear many hats
The complaint follows a declaratory ruling issued by the England and Wales High Court last month that said Samsung is entitled to an interim licence
Tobias Hahn explains how the firm's multi-jurisdictional setup enabled it to secure an injunction on behalf of Fujifilm relating to defendant Kodak’s non-UPC activity
Gift this article