a) Consent to holding oral proceedings by videoconference initially required 

In T 1378/16 the oral proceedings that took place on 8 May 2020 were the first held by videoconference in the history of the Boards of Appeal, and were held with the agreement of the appellant. The board considered it appropriate to address the legal basis for oral proceedings within the meaning of Art. 116 EPC: In the past, the boards had rejected requests for oral proceedings to be held by videoconference, mainly on the grounds that there was no "general framework" to this effect, as, in particular, no provision was made for suitable ViCo rooms and for the public to attend ViCo-based hearings (see e.g. T 1266/07, T 2068/14). At the same time, the boards had held that Art. 116 EPC did not mandate oral proceedings taking place with the physical presence of the parties. Several boards had considered that it had been within their discretion to decide whether or not to select this form for the parties' oral submissions (T 2068/14, T 932/16). In T 1378/16 the board endorsed this earlier interpretation of the legal framework. The board pointed out that, in contrast to the circumstances under which previous decisions of the boards of appeal had been issued, boards now had at their disposal suitable rooms at their premises for hearings by videoconference and that, by means of the communication of 6 May 2020, appropriate provisions had been made for the public to attend such hearings.

T 492/18 dealt with the issue of the attendance of an accompanying person by means of video connection. The oral proceedings took place in person. The board reasoned that the respondent had not agreed to holding the oral proceedings by videoconference. The board furthermore stated that the possibility of holding oral proceedings by videoconference was predicated by the boards' ability to offer the necessary technical facilities. At the time the decision was taken (October 2020), facilities for holding oral proceedings in mixed mode, with members of a party attending at the Office's premises and other members attending remotely, were not available to the board for the oral proceedings. For these reasons, the board was not able to accede to the appellant's request.