EPO: Enlarged Board endorses video hearings in appeal proceedings
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

EPO: Enlarged Board endorses video hearings in appeal proceedings

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px.png
rythik-ajkmy81ivus-unsplash.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos P/S explains the EBA’s G 1/21 decision

On October 28 2021, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) issued its reasons for decision G 1/21 on the legality of the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference (ViCo). The decision lays down that 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 by way of ViCo is compatible with the European Patent Convention even without the consent of all parties to the proceedings. The decision is specifically concerned with oral proceedings at the appeal stage only and is therefore not immediately applicable to oral proceedings at the first instance.

Regarding the parties’ right to oral proceedings enshrined in Article 116 EPC, the EBA holds that the term ‘oral proceedings’ is not limited to the specific form that was known at the time the EPC was drawn up, and that it would be at odds with the object and purpose of the EPC if the intention of the legislator was to exclude future formats for oral proceedings that might be made possible by technological progress.

In the context of the parties’ fundamental right to be heard pursuant to Article 113 EPC, the EBA expresses the view that in-person oral proceedings for now are the optimum format, even though the right to be heard or the right to fair proceedings, according to the EBA, can in fact be respected in the ViCo format. The in-person format should, however, be the default option. 

With respect to the conduct of oral proceedings by way of ViCo in the absence of the parties’ consent, the EBA notes that there must be circumstances that justify not holding the oral proceedings in person. Such circumstances may, e.g. relate to impairments affecting the parties’ ability to travel in case of a pandemic. 

Even though decision G 1/21 specifically addresses oral proceedings in appeal, there seems to be nothing that suggests that the reasons of the EBA would not be applicable to oral proceedings within the meaning of Article 116 EPC in general. It remains to be seen if the EPO adopts the findings of G 1/21 in respect of oral proceedings before the departments of first instance.

 

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Partner, Inspicos P/S

E: jpf@inspicos.com

 

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

An intimate understanding of a client’s sector is essential to winning new business, a survey of over 28,000 corporate counsel reveals
Counsel say a Federal Circuit ruling on the obviousness test for design patents may increase the time IP owners spend defending their rights
While the INTA Annual Meeting is over for another year, here are a few things Managing IP learned after attending IP’s biggest party
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Four sources reveal which tools they have been using – or building – to help them with a range of tasks from invention generation to claim sufficiency
Managing IP reveals Wednesday's highlights, including a discussion on how AI is helping lawyers improve their "gut instinct" trademark decisions
Managing IP reveals Tuesday’s highlights, including an illuminating discussion celebrating women in the workplace and the challenges that remain
Dana Northcott, INTA’s 2024 president and associate general counsel for Amazon's IP team, talks about her work for the association
Managing IP reveals highlights from the INTA Annual Meeting, including law firms’ diversity and ESG concerns and a new beginning for a Chinese firm
Firms with a broad geographic reach are more likely to win work, especially from global companies with high turnovers, according to survey data of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Gift this article