b) Compliance with G 1/21 – holding oral proceedings in person without a party’s consent 

In T 2303/19 the appellant requested that the oral proceedings take place by videoconference arguing that this would facilitate attendance of the appellant’s in-house counsel and reduce the risk of any last-minute travel disruption due to uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 cases. The respondent did not consent to this request and suggested a mixed-mode format. The board decided to hold the oral proceedings in person. The board agreed with the respondent that at the relevant time there were no COVID-19-related travel restrictions which would impair the parties' possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises, and that in-person oral proceedings were at that time the optimum format as expressed in decision G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 (see also T 1198/17). The board also considered that the possible attendance of an accompanying person could not determine the format of the oral proceedings.

In T 1198/17 the oral proceedings were held in person without the respondent’s consent. The board recalled that, in accordance with Art. 15a(1) RPBA 2020, the board may decide to hold oral proceedings by videoconference if the board considers it appropriate to do so. Hence, there was no absolute right of a party to have oral proceedings conducted in a specific format, either by videoconference or in person. The discretionary nature of this decision had been confirmed in G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16. The board held that, in the case at hand, there were neither general nor particular circumstances related to limitations and impairments affecting the parties' ability to attend that justified denying the appellant's request to have in-person oral proceedings.