Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Legality of video proceedings at the EPO questioned

Sponsored by


Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos P/S assesses the legitimacy of the EPO’s adaptation of video conferencing solutions in proceedings

As of January 2021, the holding of oral proceedings by video-conference (VICO) has been mandatory in first-instance opposition proceedings, and requests for oral proceedings in person, at the premises of the EPO, are only being granted in exceptional circumstances. In regard to appeal proceedings, new Article 15a of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal, which entered into force on April 1 2021, allows the Boards to hold oral proceedings by VICO whenever the Board considers it appropriate to do so. 

Despite the evident need for avoiding a growing backlog of cases during the COVID-19 pandemic and for guaranteeing access to justice, the move to mandatory VICO oral proceedings has been criticised by some for not being compatible with the right to oral proceedings. By decision T 1807/15 of March 12 2021, a Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO has referred the question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA). This asks if oral proceedings, in the form of a VICO, is compatible with Article 116(1) EPC if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the hearing being held by VICO.

The case before the EBA is pending as G 1/21, and the oral proceedings before the EBA are scheduled to take place – by VICO - on May 28 2021. Third parties are invited to submit amicus curiae briefs by April 28 2021. 

Meanwhile, oral proceedings before the examining and opposition divisions continue by VICO, without requiring the agreement of the parties. To the present author’s knowledge, the Boards of Appeal have not issued any statement about the consequences of parties not consenting to oral proceedings by VICO in appeal proceedings while G 1/21 is pending. One likely scenario is that in such cases oral proceedings will not take place by VICO.

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Partner, Inspicos P/S


more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library