8.3.4 Case law concerning oral proceedings held after G 1/21 and prior to the end of pandemic measures at the Boards of Appeal

After the Order of G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 (16 July 2021) and later the Reasons for this decision (28 October 2021) were issued, the boards referred to either of them (especially to points 47-51 of the Reasons) when deciding on the format of oral proceedings. In most decisions the boards confirmed that during a general emergency, holding oral proceedings by videoconference without a party’s consent was in line with G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 and Art. 15a(1) RPBA (see e.g. T 758/20, T 1158/20). Some of these decisions also dealt with objections based on an alleged infringement of Art. 113 EPC (see e.g. R 12/22, T 250/90, T 1624/20). For more information on the right to be heard, see chapter III.B.2.7. “The right to be heard in oral proceedings”.

Boards have also stated that holding oral proceedings in person without a party’s consent was in line with G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 (T 1198/17, T 2303/19).

Some boards had to react to parties’ allegations as to the absence or existence of a general emergency situation (see e.g. T 2303/19, T 758/20, T 1158/20). In some decisions, oral proceedings by videoconference were considered to be an equivalent alternative to in-person oral proceedings (T 758/20, T 1158/20). Further issues, e.g. technical aspects of videoconferencing (T 250/19, T 758/20, T 1158/20) and applicability of considerations set out in G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 to opposition proceedings (T 1041/21), were also addressed in the case law.