e) Applicability of considerations set out in G 1/21 to first-instance proceedings and to hearing a witness 

In T 423/22 the opposition division had heard witness M by videoconference without the consent of the appellant (patent proprietor). As to the appellant’s argument that it had not been able to observe the witness's body language during their hearing, the board noted inter alia that most of the body language could be perceived in the camera-section visible to the other participants of the videoconference. The board also noted that its considerations did not contradict G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16. In the board’s view, it could not be assumed that, under the current technical possibilities, the Enlarged Board would have considered there to be a general obstacle against holding a witness hearing by videoconference. Whether G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 required a general emergency in order to hear a witness by videoconference, however, did not have to be addressed since, according to the board, G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 had not concerned oral proceedings in opposition proceedings nor taking of evidence, but instead had been limited to oral proceedings in appeal proceedings. For more information on taking evidence by videoconference, see chapters III.B.2.6.4 and III.G.3.1.7.