Germany: EBA set to hear case on the legality of the EPO’s video proceedings

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Germany: EBA set to hear case on the legality of the EPO’s video proceedings

Sponsored by

maiwald-logo-cropped.PNG
alexander-shatov-niukimzcsp8-unsplash.jpg

Eva Ehlich and Angela Zumstein of Maiwald explore why video conference technology at the EPO has caused widespread concern

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO will soon decide on an interesting question on whether oral proceedings before the EPO can be conducted by video conference, even against the will of the parties.

In May 2020, there was little expectation that appeal case T 1807/15 would lead to a landmark decision. After all, it only related to the maintenance (or not) of a patent relating to a radio frequency amplifier, a routine type of case at the EPO.

This case was the first in a long line of similar cases. Since the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, quite a few oral hearings at the EPO have had to be postponed. Up until that point, conducting oral proceedings via video conference was contingent on the consent of the parties. However, statistical evidence shows that little use was made of video conferencing. As a result, the backlog of pending first instance proceedings continued to grow, because the coronavirus restrictions had led to a stay of almost all proceedings.

Unlike the EPO, during the year 2020, the Boards of Appeal conducted oral proceedings in different formats – such as with the parties present in person, with the parties connected by video conference or through a hybrid setting.

In December 2020, the President of the Boards of Appeal nevertheless requested the Boards of Appeal Committee to add a new Article 15a to the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal.

This is also consistent with the decision of the EPO President. Article 15a specifies that the Boards of Appeal may in principle conduct oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC via video conference, without the consent of the parties. The Boards of Appeal Committee made an ordinance to this effect and the Administrative Council approved the new Article on March 23 2021. However, this measure is not subject to any time limit and is therefore not only limited to the period of the pandemic.

The Board of Appeal responsible for this case referred the following question to the EBA, however, without reference to the new Article 15a of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal:

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

 

Should the EBA come to the conclusion that the EPC would not allow this, not only Article 15a of the Rules of Procedure, but also the measures taken by the EPO to combat the effects of the pandemic would for the future be nullified.

The hearing in the case before the EBA will take place on May 28 2021, interestingly in the form of a video conference.

 
Eva EhlichPartner, MaiwaldE: ehlich@maiwald.eu Angela ZumsteinPartner, MaiwaldE: zumstein@maiwald.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at the newly merged firm Jones Maxwell Smith & Davis reveal their plan to take on bigger firms while attracting more clients and talent
Charles Achkar, who will bring a team of two with him, said he was excited about joining ‘one of the few strong IP boutiques’
Andy Lee, head of IP at Brandsmiths and winner of the Soft IP Practitioner of the Year award, tells us why 2024 was a seminal year and why clients value brave advice
The deal to acquire MIP's parent company is expected to complete by the end of May 2025
Jinwon Chun discusses the need for vigilance, his love for iced coffee, and preparing for INTA
Karl Barnfather’s new patent practice will focus on protecting and enforcing tech innovations in the electronics, AI, and software industries
Partner Ranjini Acharya explains how her Federal Circuit debut resulted in her convincing the court to rule that machine learning technology was not patent-eligible
Paul Hastings and Smart & Biggar also won multiple awards, while Baker McKenzie picked up a significant prize
Burford Capital study finds that in-house lawyers have become more likely to monetise patents, but that their IP portfolios are still underutilised
Robert Reading and Faidon Zisis at Clarivate unpick some of the data surrounding music-related trademarks
Gift this article