Breaking: EPO backs mandatory VICO – only in emergencies

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

Breaking: EPO backs mandatory VICO – only in emergencies

epo-vico-comp.jpg

The Enlarged Board of Appeal has avoided answering whether video conferences can become mandatory in a non-emergency situation

The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled today, July 16, that oral appeal proceedings by video conference can be held without the consent of parties – but only in states of emergency.

In its decision in case G1/21, the EBoA found that the boards can, during periods of general emergency that impair parties’ ability to attend in-person proceedings, hold a VICO hearing by default without both parties’ consent.

However, the EBoA did not address whether VICO proceedings can be held without the consent of the parties in the absence of a period of emergency. It also unclear who would decide this definition.

“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 in the form of a video conference is compatible with the EPC even if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent,” the EBoA wrote in its decision.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the BoA has been holding oral proceedings via VICO.

The G1/21 hearing has not been short of controversy. The composition of the panel hearing the dispute was changed after the EBoA accepted that there was a justified fear of bias.

Those concerns were raised because BoA president Carl Josefsson, who was involved in the drafting of the article that allowed for VICO hearings, was due to sit on the panel hearing the dispute.

Josefsson was replaced by EBoA member Fritz Blumer.

Managing IP will provide further analysis in the coming days. 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026, and is likely to have a significant impact on Europe’s IP market
Geoff Steward and Rebecca Newman of Addleshaw Goddard explain how they secured victory in a rare ‘genericide’ case and why the work went beyond the courtroom
Nancy Frandsen looks back on her career, from answering a paralegal advert to expanding RCCB’s ‘entrepreneurial’ IP practice as a partner
The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Gift this article