G1/21: a look at video conferencing at the EPO
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 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

G1/21: a look at video conferencing at the EPO

Sponsored by


Eva Ehlich, Angela Zumstein and James Neuhaus of Maiwald note their observations on oral proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal

As previously reported, the following question was referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA):

Does the European Patent Convention (EPC), specifically Article 116 EPC, allow oral proceedings to be conducted via video conference against the will of the parties?


The crux is whether Article 116 EPC should be interpreted as guaranteeing the right to an ‘in-person’ oral proceeding, or whether video conferencing (ViCo) may be considered to fulfil the requirements for an oral proceeding.

The EPO President has made public commitments to developing a ‘new normal’ through the use of ViCo and submitted comments to support this position. Key arguments in his submission included the fact that “…a ViCo…contains the essence of an oral proceedings, namely that the board and the parties/representatives can communicate with each other simultaneously”.

50 amicus curiae briefs were filed: 32 briefs against mandatory ViCo, nine in favour, and nine neutral briefs.

The first oral proceedings were postponed for procedural reasons.

Among the appellant’s arguments regarding the interpretation of the term ‘oral proceedings’, were important points on the need for an impression of a fair trial, the need for procedural efficiency and the historical distinction between opting for ViCo versus formally waiving the right to in person proceedings.

At the second oral proceedings, the first round of arguments dealt with procedural matters.

In the second round, the representatives of the president stressed the importance of an answer to the referred question that could be generally applied, in order to ensure legal certainty. Their most important substantive argument was that the law should be interpreted in today’s context and not that of the date of its origin.

A crucial argument of the appellant was that in a codified legal system such as the EPC, judicial interpretation must not stray into judicial legislation, whereby the original meaning of the legislation is altered. The appellant’s position is that the rights conferred by Article 116 EPC are not satisfied by oral proceedings held by ViCo. Since oral proceedings are held only at the request of the parties, it is their prerogative to consent to alternatives which do not fulfil Article 116 EPC.

Board members posed questions relating to: which criteria are to be applied when deciding between the forms of oral proceedings, what the general legal basis for oral proceedings via ViCo may be, on what basis the purported right for an in person oral proceedings may be restricted, why the will of the party should not matter, and whether the ViCo practice is to be continued post pandemic.

The main position of the representatives of the president was that ViCos were always sufficient for Article 116 EPC and choice of form is solely at the discretion of the presiding body. The appellant’s main position was that the rights conferred by Article 116 EPC are not satisfied by ViCos per se and to allow this would require a change in the law.

A written decision is expected in due course.     


Eva Ehlich

Partner, Maiwald

E: ehlich@maiwald.eu


Angela Zumstein

Partner, Maiwald

E: zumstein@maiwald.eu


James Neuhaus

Patent attorney trainee, Maiwald

E: neuhaus@maiwald.eu

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

James Lawrence, partner at Addisons, explains how he convinced the full Federal Court of Australia to back his client in a patent dispute concerning mining safety equipment
The deal will allow the companies to use each other’s patents covering 4G and 5G technologies, and other cellular SEPs
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Three lead IP counsel in the US, the UK and China share how they walk the fine line between building in-house competence and splurging on external lawyers
Mike Renaud, head of the IP division at Mintz, explains his business strategy and how the firm justifies charging higher rates
Sources say firms must build relationships with clients that transcend their connections to individual partners
INTA’s resolution on online marketplaces and appointment of Amazon’s general counsel follow calls for the association to take a direct position on internet fakes
Counsel report where they’re seeing more issues with inventorship arise and how they’re getting this work in the first place
To mark the firm’s one-year anniversary, partners at Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone reveal the biggest challenges of getting a new firm off the ground
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career