G1/21 Issues Order On Decision On Holding Oral Proceedings By Video Conference

H
HLK

Contributor

HLK is a global cooperation combining Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP and HL Kempner Partnerschaft mbB and provides a full suite of IP services advising across the entire IPR Lifespan™ in all technical and scientific disciplines. With offices in London, Bristol, Munich, Leeds, Glasgow, and Guangzhou (China), HLK provides IP services across the globe. HLK’s resources and expertise are exclusively dedicated to IP protection: safeguarding the inventions, creative designs, brand identities and other innovations of its clients. HLK advises on the strategy, identification, protection, opposition and appeal, exploitation and enforcement of IP rights, and defends its clients from allegations of infringement by focusing on acquiring competitive advantage for its clients. HLK is privileged to work with some of the most exciting and forward-looking businesses in the world which are at the forefront of innovation and product development in their various spheres.
On 16 July 2021, the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal issued the order of its decision of G1/21 which concerned the legality of enforcing oral proceedings by videoconference.
United Kingdom Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On 16 July 2021, the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal issued the order of its decision of G1/21 which concerned the legality of enforcing oral proceedings by videoconference. The order permits the Board of Appeal to hold Appeal hearing oral proceedings by video conference during the pandemic. The full order of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is as follows:

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 videoconference is compatible with the EPC even if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference.

Notably, the Enlarged Board of Appeal provided no comment on whether the right to be heard is breached if not all parties agree to oral proceedings by video conference in the absence of a "general emergency". Moreover, there was no further clarification as to whether oral proceedings could go ahead without consent of both parties in examination and opposition first instance proceedings before the EPO.

It remains to be seen whether the Enlarged Board of Appeal will decide exactly when this period of "general emergency" will come to an end and whether video conference proceedings will be the new normal in a post-pandemic world.

HLK will report further when the full written decision has been issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More