Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 Art 116 für die Entscheidung T0489/20 vom 17.03.2023

In T 489/20 the board summoned for in-person oral proceedings. It then informed the parties that it would consider the arrangement for the oral proceedings to take place by videoconference if all parties agreed to such format, but that it was not in the position to arrange a video link for the attendance of an individual participant (the appellant (patent proprietor) had requested this for an accompanying person). Respondent-opponent 2 and respondent-opponent 3 did not consent to the oral proceedings being held in the form of a videoconference. Respondent-opponent 4 announced they would not attend the oral proceedings if they were held in person. The board decided that the oral proceedings were to be held in person in March 2023. The board reasoned that according to Art. 15a(1) RPBA 2020 the board may decide to hold oral proceedings by videoconference if the board considers it appropriate to do so, either upon request by a party or of its own motion. In view of the disapproval to hold the oral proceedings by videoconference expressed by respondent- opponent 2 and respondent-opponent 3, and in the absence of any particular circumstances as mentioned in G 1/21 (point 49 of the Reasons), the board did not consider it appropriate to hold the oral proceedings by videoconference. The board noted that under Art. 15a(2) RPBA 2020, a party, representative or accompanying person may, upon request, be allowed to attend by videoconference if oral proceedings are scheduled to be held on the premises of the EPO. However, in the current case the board had not been in a position to arrange a video link for the attendance of individual participants.