2.2. Acts or omissions prejudicing the timely and efficient conduct of oral proceedings
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
  4. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
  5. III. Rules common to all proceedings before the EPO
  6. R. Apportionment of costs
  7. 2. Equity of a different apportionment of costs
  8. 2.2. Acts or omissions prejudicing the timely and efficient conduct of oral proceedings
  9. 2.2.1 Failure of a party to appear at oral proceedings
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

2.2.1 Failure of a party to appear at oral proceedings

Overview

2.2.1 Failure of a party to appear at oral proceedings

You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here

The boards consider it highly undesirable for summoned parties to announce too late, unclearly or not at all that they will not be attending. Such conduct is inconsistent both with the responsible exercise of rights and with the basic rules of courtesy (see for example T 434/95, T 65/05).

There is an equitable obligation on every party summoned to oral proceedings to inform the EPO as soon as he knows that he will not be attending as summoned (T 212/07), regardless of whether he himself or another party requested the oral proceedings and of whether or not a communication accompanied the summons to oral proceedings. If a party who has been summoned to oral proceedings fails to attend as summoned without notifying the EPO in advance, an apportionment of costs in favour of another party, who has attended as summoned, may be justified for reasons of equity in accordance with Art. 104(1) EPC 1973 (established case law, see for example T 930/92, OJ 1996, 191; T 123/05, T 972/13). As one party's non-attendance does not automatically put the other party at a disadvantage (T 273/07, T 544/94 and T 507/89), one essential question here is whether the appellant's failure to attend rendered the oral proceedings unnecessary (T 10/82, OJ 1983, 407; T 275/89, OJ 1992, 126).

a) Different apportionment of costs ordered
b) Refusal of a request for apportionment of costs
New decisions
T 280/15

Siehe Entscheidungsgründe 3.

Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility