All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Legality of video proceedings at the EPO questioned

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px.png
lianhao-qu-lfan1gswv5c-unsplash.jpg

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

E: jpf@inspicos.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources say that the exam format should be revamped to test aptitude rather than rote learning and increase accessibility
The Italian firm that built the UPC case management system plans to launch a full training course in October
ITC counsel explain why companies will continue to bring trade secret complaints to the venue and talk about how to tackle challenges
Google and Sonos patent war continues; CNIPA finishes first administrative patent trials; Oppo halts German sales after Nokia wins; Chugai settles Fresenius suit; Taylor Swift claims she never heard Playas Gon’ Play; AI can’t be inventor, says Federal Circuit
Brands and retailers should educate their marketing departments and get help from their sales teams so private label products don’t become a major problem
The UK government wants to stop local tech going to China, but tech transfer offices often have few options
Hubertus Schacht of the Munich Regional Court shares his thoughts on German SEP trends and their influence on the UPC
Trademark counsel applaud the EUIPO’s new filing system but reveal it has come with teething issues
The executive vice president of partnerships and acquisitions at the NPE explains how his company’s deal with Intel came to be
South Korean lawyers welcome the trademark guidelines but say the appellate board, courts, and other IP offices may not necessarily agree with the KIPO
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree