In decision G 1/21, the Enlarged Board of Appeal answers the recently raised question whether the holding of oral proceedings in the form of a video conference complies with the right to oral proceedings, even if not all parties involved have given their consent to the holding of oral proceedings as a video conference.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal concludes that if it is not possible for a party to attend oral proceedings in person during a general emergency, holding oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal by videoconference would be in accordance with the EPC, even if not all parties involved in the proceedings have consented to the holding of oral proceedings by videoconference.
In the reasoning, the Enlarged Board of Appeal states that holding oral proceedings on site is seen as the gold standard. Accordingly, there must be weighty reasons to deviate from this gold standard against the will of the parties. One of these reasons is the general emergency situation, which can be seen in particular in the still ongoing pandemic and the general travel restrictions associated with it. However, no explicit statement was made on how to proceed after the current emergency situation has ceased to exist.
Furthermore, the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal only refers to proceedings before the Boards of Appeal and does not make any statements on how to proceed in similar cases before the Examination and Opposition Divisions.
With this decision, the Enlarged Board of Appeal takes the position in the current pandemic situation that oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal can be held by video conference even against the will of the parties, but leaves open how to proceed after the pandemic situation has ceased to exist.
