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

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Three successive wins have got the firm eyeing additional opportunities as ITC work booms
While many firms remain focused on generative AI, recent hires and practice launches suggest the next battle may be for lawyers who understand how AI is moving into the physical world
The explosion of data centres has prompted patent pool operators to create new licensing opportunities
The court struck out copyright claims brought by Ladbrokes owner Entain, saying that ownership details should have been completed before litigation began
Düsseldorf has overtaken Munich as the UPC's busiest division, while firms including Winston Taylor, Clifford Chance, and Hoyng Rokh Monegier featured in disputes involving Abbott, Essity, Amazon and Hurom
The managing partner gave up an equity partnership track in New York to build a practice in India. More than a decade later, she discusses entrepreneurship, leadership, and why women should not wait before taking the next step
Vice presidents Shinya Jitsuhiro and Hirohisa Suzuki discuss litigation trends in Japan, recruitment challenges and clients’ international expansion
IP boutique Petillion represented IKEA in the dispute, which concerned the use of the multinational’s trademarks in an immigration-focused campaign. The firm tells Managing IP how it secured the outcome
The Pizzeys-Griffith Hack integration was designed to create a stronger Australian IP platform but with several ex-Pizzeys principals now gone, the deal's success may depend on where clients place their trust
Thomas Lonsdale and Hsu Min Chung of HGF explore the practical impact of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G1/25 and its interplay with G1/24
Gift this article