Breaking: EPO backs mandatory VICO – only in emergencies
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 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Gift this article