7.3.3 Case law concerning oral proceedings held after the end of pandemic measures at the Boards of Appeal
This section has been updated to reflect case law and legislative changes up to 31 December 2023. For the previous version of this section please refer to the "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal", 10th edition (PDF). |
(i) Oral proceedings held by videoconference without a party’s consent
In T 1067/21 the board decided to hold oral proceedings by videoconference in March 2023 without the appellant 2's (opponent’s) consent. The board referred to Art. 15a RPBA 2020 and indicated that this Article provided the board with discretion to hold oral proceedings by videoconference. The board did not refer to the reasoning and criteria of G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16.
(ii) Oral proceedings held in person without a party’s consent
In T 489/20 oral proceedings were held in person in March 2023 without the consent of respondent-opponent 2 and respondent-opponent 3. The board reasoned that according to Art. 15a(1) RPBA 2020 the board may decide to hold oral proceedings by videoconference if the board considers it appropriate to do so. In view of respondent-opponent 2 and 3’s disapproval to hold the oral proceedings by videoconference, and in the absence of any particular circumstances as mentioned in G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16, the board did not consider it appropriate to hold the oral proceedings by videoconference. Though the applicability of G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 reasoning was not addressed, with the assessment of "particular circumstances" as mentioned in G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 the board seems to have implicitly confirmed its applicability beyond a general emergency situation.
In T 3277/19 oral proceedings were held in person in September 2023 despite the parties' requests for oral proceedings by videoconference. The board's reasoning included that the subject-matter of the proceedings involved complex explanations of the duct at issue's geometry in relation to the visualisation of several virtual planes and intersections, which made in-person proceedings the appropriate format in this case. The board also noted that while it always had the possibility to alter the format to a videoconference at short notice if a party were restricted in travelling, the appellant had not shown that it had been restricted in this regard.