EPO: Enlarged Board endorses video hearings in appeal proceedings

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: Enlarged Board endorses video hearings in appeal proceedings

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
rythik-ajkmy81ivus-unsplash.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos P/S explains the EBA’s G 1/21 decision

On October 28 2021, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) issued its reasons for decision G 1/21 on the legality of the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference (ViCo). The decision lays down that during a general emergency impairing the parties’ possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises, the conduct of oral proceedings before the boards of appeal by way of ViCo is compatible with the European Patent Convention even without the consent of all parties to the proceedings. The decision is specifically concerned with oral proceedings at the appeal stage only and is therefore not immediately applicable to oral proceedings at the first instance.

Regarding the parties’ right to oral proceedings enshrined in Article 116 EPC, the EBA holds that the term ‘oral proceedings’ is not limited to the specific form that was known at the time the EPC was drawn up, and that it would be at odds with the object and purpose of the EPC if the intention of the legislator was to exclude future formats for oral proceedings that might be made possible by technological progress.

In the context of the parties’ fundamental right to be heard pursuant to Article 113 EPC, the EBA expresses the view that in-person oral proceedings for now are the optimum format, even though the right to be heard or the right to fair proceedings, according to the EBA, can in fact be respected in the ViCo format. The in-person format should, however, be the default option. 

With respect to the conduct of oral proceedings by way of ViCo in the absence of the parties’ consent, the EBA notes that there must be circumstances that justify not holding the oral proceedings in person. Such circumstances may, e.g. relate to impairments affecting the parties’ ability to travel in case of a pandemic. 

Even though decision G 1/21 specifically addresses oral proceedings in appeal, there seems to be nothing that suggests that the reasons of the EBA would not be applicable to oral proceedings within the meaning of Article 116 EPC in general. It remains to be seen if the EPO adopts the findings of G 1/21 in respect of oral proceedings before the departments of first instance.

 

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Partner, Inspicos P/S

E: jpf@inspicos.com

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Only a few international law firms have made a mark in Australia’s IP market, but Rouse entering the field could be a sign of changing times
Caroline Casalonga reflects on her journey as the French firm’s first female leader and shares her dream of building the outfit into a major European independent IP practice
Firm says the hire of Laura Ramsay will help consolidate its position as a ‘market leader’ for premium IP work
CEO Martyn Fish reflects on the past as HGF celebrates its 30th anniversary and discusses how PE investment has helped the firm’s people and clients
The 105-year-old IP firm Wrays and related business Aperture Insight will join Rouse but operate independently
The winners will be revealed during a ceremony in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, on November 6
Three new partners have joined HGF across its offices in Europe, while Carpmaels & Ransford has made UPC-focused hires in Germany
Tarun Gandhi joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss the biggest misconception about IP, the importance of staying curious, and his biggest inspiration
It’s that time of the year for law firms to participate in the research for the Managing IP Awards and IP STARS rankings
Latham & Watkins client CoStar filed an opposition brief against Crexi, arguing that their motion to stay is a distraction from an imminent copyright trial
Gift this article