7.3. Oral proceedings held by videoconference
In T 1807/15 the board referred the following question to the Enlarged Board: Is the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference compatible with the right to oral proceedings as enshrined in Art. 116(1) EPC 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?
In G 1/21 of 16 July 2021 date: 2021-07-16, the Enlarged Board held 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 in the form of a videoconference is compatible with the EPC even if not all the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference. The Enlarged Board found it justified to limit the scope of the referral to oral proceedings before the boards of appeal and to take the specific context of the referral, a general emergency (i.e. the COVID-19 pandemic), into account.
The Enlarged Board interpreted Art. 116 EPC and taking in particular the object and the purpose of oral proceedings into account, namely to give parties an opportunity to plead their case orally, came to the conclusion that oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference were oral proceedings within the meaning of Art. 116 EPC. Even if the videoconference format has certain shortcomings, it provides parties with an opportunity to present their case orally.
The Enlarged Board then considered whether a videoconference is equivalent to an in-person hearing and whether it is a suitable format for conducting oral proceedings. It acknowledged that oral proceedings by videoconference cannot, at least for the time being, provide the same level of communication as is possible when all participants are physically present in the courtroom. The Enlarged Board concluded that the limitations currently inherent in the use of video technology made this format suboptimal for oral proceedings, though normally not to such a degree that a party's right to be heard or right to fair proceedings was seriously impaired.
The Enlarged Board also discussed whether a party has a right to oral proceedings in person. Parties wishing to have oral proceedings held in person could only be denied this option for good reasons. Firstly, there must be a suitable alternative. If in a particular case a videoconference is not suitable, the oral proceedings will need to be held in person. Secondly, there must also be circumstances specific to the case that justify the decision not to hold the oral proceedings in person. These circumstances should relate to limitations and impairments affecting the parties' ability to attend oral proceedings in person at the premises of the EPO. In the case of a pandemic, such circumstances could be general travel restrictions or disruptions of travel possibilities, quarantine obligations, access restrictions at the EPO premises, and other health-related measures aimed at preventing the spread of the disease. Thirdly, the decision whether good reasons justify a deviation from the preference of a party to hold the oral proceedings in person must be a discretionary decision of the board of appeal.
In T 1197/18 the board concluded that the pandemic was a general emergency and that, as had been ruled in G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16, its holding oral proceedings via a videoconference in these circumstances was compatible with the EPC, even if the appellant had not given their consent.
In T 2474/17 the board stated that the conclusion to hold the oral proceedings as a videoconference was in line with Art. 15a(1) RPBA 2020 and in line with the Enlarged Board of Appeal's decision G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16. According to the Enlarged Board's reasoning, the pandemic was a "general emergency impairing the parties' possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises", thus constituting "good reasons" for the conduct of oral proceedings by videoconference, despite the appellant's explicit wish for in-person oral proceedings. The continued delay of holding oral proceedings during a pandemic is further ground to overrule a party's wish to hold oral proceedings in person.
- T 618/21
Catchword:
1. Artikel 15a VOBK 2020 gibt der Kammer ein Ermessen bei der Entscheidung, die mündliche Verhandlung von Amts wegen, gegebenenfalls auch gegen den Willen der Parteien, als Videokonferenz durchzuführen. Maßgebliches Kriterium ist die Zweckmäßigkeit. 2. Der Begriff "zweckmäßig" impliziert, dass das Format der Videokonferenz zur Erreichung des mit der mündlichen Verhandlung angestrebten Zwecks grundsätzlich geeignet und darüber hinaus auch sinnvoll (sachdienlich) erscheint. a. Das Kriterium der Eignung bildet eine absolute Schranke und schließt für die konkret vorgesehene Verhandlung ungeeignete Verhandlungsformate aus, diese sind immer unzweckmäßig. b. Das Kriterium der Sachdienlichkeit erfordert eine abwägende Gesamtbetrachtung aller Aspekte, die im Zusammenhang mit der Planung und Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung vor einer Beschwerdekammer eine Rolle spielen und das hierfür gewählte Format als mehr oder weniger sachdienlich für die Erreichung des Zwecks der Verhandlung erscheinen lassen. Die Abwägung sollte vorrangig auf objektiven Erwägungen beruhen. Die subjektiven Einschätzungen der Parteien können eine ergänzende Rolle spielen; sie fallen umso stärker ins Gewicht, je mehr die Empfindungen durch von den Parteien vorgetragene objektivierbare Argumente gestützt sind. Es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass es mehrere zweckmäßige Formate nebeneinander geben kann. 3. Die Regelungen des Artikels 15a VOBK widersprechen weder höherrangigem Recht, noch den wesentlichen Schlussfolgerungen der Großen Beschwerdekammer in der Entscheidung G1/21. 4. Aufgrund der zwischenzeitlich eingetretenen technischen Weiterentwicklung und größeren Erfahrung aller Beteiligten können Videokonferenzen in den meisten Fällen inzwischen als nahezu gleichwertige Alternative zu einer Präsenzverhandlung angesehen werden. Konkrete Umstände des Einzelfalls können allerdings dazu führen, dass das Format der Videokonferenz entweder schon nicht geeignet oder bei einer Gesamtabwägung zumindest so wenig sachdienlich erscheint, dass die nach Artikel 15a VOBK erforderliche Zweckmäßigkeit fehlt.
- T 758/20
Catchword:
Decision G 1/21 cannot be read as restricting the possibility of summoning for oral proceedings by videoconference contrary to the will of one of the parties only in the case of a general emergency. G 1/21 does not exclude that there are other circumstances specific to a case that justify the decision not to hold the oral proceedings in person.
- T 2432/19
Catchword:
1. Although the order of G 1/21 refers to an emergency situation, it follows from the ratio decidendi of this decision that in-person oral proceedings can only be denied under very limited conditions, even in a situation of general emergency such as a pandemic. 2. Due to the fact that videoconferences, at least with current technology, can only provide a suboptimal form of communication, parties have a right to the optimum format for oral proceedings, i.e. in-person oral proceedings, that can only be denied under very limited conditions. 3. Further, e contrario it also follows from the reasons underlying the Enlarged Board's decision, that parties cannot force Boards to conduct videoconferences instead of in-person oral proceedings.