b) Explicit withdrawal not required 

In T 517/17 the appellant's indication that it would not attend oral proceedings was considered by the board as complying with the requirement of a withdrawal under R. 103(4)(c) EPC. Unlike the board in T 73/17, the board found that an explicit withdrawal was not required. The board held that, if it was true that the express announcement of not attending arranged oral proceedings before the board was equivalent to a withdrawal of the request for them, this must be true and valid for all effects that the EPC and the case law attach to a withdrawal. See also T 202/18, T 901/18, T 1888/18, T 441/22, T 104/23.

The board in T 104/23 held that with the appellant's announcement of the intention not to attend the oral proceedings, the legislative intention under R. 103(4)(c) EPC had been met: the board could not have cancelled the oral proceedings but for the appellant’s statement. Thus, oral proceedings were ultimately not held and the legislative purpose of facilitating and streamlining proceedings was achieved.

In T 3257/19 the appellant's indication that it would not attend oral proceedings was also considered by the board as complying with the requirement of a withdrawal under R. 103(4)(c) EPC. No reimbursement of the appeal fee could however be ordered since the appellant’s indication had not been submitted within one month of the notification of the board’s communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA (as in force until 31 December 2023), as required by R. 103(4)(c) EPC.