INFORMATION FROM THE EPO
Notices of the Vice-Presidents
Notice of the Vice-Presidents Directorates-General 2 and 3 dated 1 September 2000 concerning oral proceedings before the EPO
1. The current practice for fixing the date of oral proceedings, both before the departments of first instance and before the boards of appeal, was published in OJ EPO 1997, 469.
1.1 Experience has shown that the present practice of proposing a first date and an alternative one is not satisfactory. In view of the large proportion of appeal cases in which oral proceedings are requested, current practice gives rise to complex organisational problems involving the availability in advance of rooms and facilities, and of the legally qualified members of the boards of appeal (who, as a rule, serve on several boards) for the fixed dates. Proposing a first date and an alternative date for oral proceedings means that for the two dates the use of the meeting room is blocked for about two weeks during this stage of summoning the parties. No other reservation of the respective room is possible during this period. The same is true for the availability of the legally qualified members. If the proposed dates are not suitable for the parties, the complicated co-ordination process must re-start. Dates near to the originally proposed ones have by then often been attributed to other cases, so that further delay in appointing oral proceedings in the case in question is caused.
1.2 Cancellations of oral proceedings at a later stage, in particular, if requested shortly before the fixed date, result, as a rule, in a considerable prolongation of the appeal proceedings. Another date must be found where all the necessary parameters mentioned above can be met. It is seldom possible to fill gaps since the time period for summoning to oral proceedings is at least two months, unless the parties waive the time limit.
1.3 Further it is to be noted that parties occasionally do not feel obliged to indicate any reasons or to submit sufficiently substantiated reasons as to why they cannot agree to the proposed dates.
1.4 Similar problems arise in proceedings before the departments of first instance.
1.5 In general, the present system impedes the aim of streamlining procedures before the EPO.
2. On the initiative of the boards of appeal, in co-operation with DG 2 and after discussion in the Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO), it has been decided to implement as from 1 November 2000 a new procedure for fixing the dates of oral proceedings:
2.1 The departments of first instance and the boards of appeal will as of 1 November 2000 fix one single date for oral proceedings. The pre-announcement of the date by phone or fax will no longer be made.
2.2 Oral proceedings appointed by the EPO will be cancelled and another date fixed at the request of a party only if the party concerned can advance serious reasons which justify the fixing of a new date. The request to fix another date shall be filed as soon as possible after the grounds preventing the party concerned from attending the oral proceedings have arisen. The request shall be accompanied by a sufficiently substantiated written statement indicating these reasons.
2.3 Serious substantive reasons to request the change of the date for oral proccedings may be, for instance:
- a previously notified summons to oral proceedings of the same party in other proceedings before the EPO or a national court,
- serious illness,
- a case of death within the family,
- the marriage of a person whose attendance in oral proceedings is relevant,
- military service or other obligatory performance of civic duties,
- holidays which have already been firmly booked before the notification of the summons to oral proceedings.
2.4. Grounds which, as a rule, are not acceptable are, for instance:
- a summons to oral proceedings before the EPO or a national court notified after the summons in the relevant proceedings,
- excessive work pressure.
2.5 Every request for fixing another date for oral proceedings should contain a statement why another representative within the meaning of Articles 133(3) or 134 EPC cannot substitute the representative prevented from attending the oral proceedings.