5.2.5 Name, qualifications and subject-matter to be specified

Professional representatives must request permission for oral submissions to be made by an accompanying person, stating that person's name and qualifications and specifying the subject-matter of the proposed oral submissions.

In T 1668/14 the board considered that G 4/95 did not deal explicitly with the question of whether an accompanying person may ever be allowed to speak on matters other than those previously notified. However, the fact that the EPO has a discretion to decide that a proposed accompanying person may not be heard at all suggests that such discretion extends also to the nature of the submissions to be permitted. The board therefore judged, in the case in hand, that it fell within the discretion of the EPO to decide whether an accompanying person might be allowed to speak on matters other than those previously notified, and that this discretion was to be exercised taking into account the facts of the particular case and the principles set out in G 4/95. Permission should only be granted where it is clear that it would not unexpectedly disadvantage the opposing party.

Concerning the admissibility of oral presentations by three technical experts, the board in T 2135/08 concluded that none of the three criteria i), ii) and iii) of G 4/95 were met, among other reasons since the requesting party had failed to state -even at the oral proceedings- the qualifications of these three persons and to specify the subject-matter of their proposed oral submissions.

The board in T 302/02 did not allow the expert to make submissions. If an expert were allowed to make submissions on subject-matter not specified in some detail beforehand, the other party or parties would be placed at a disadvantage since they could not prepare themselves properly, and this would be against the spirit and purpose of decision G 4/95 and should only be permitted if none of the parties to the proceedings objects.

In T 2552/11, the board did not permit oral submissions from Mr J. The statement by the appellant (opponent) that Mr. J would "refer to the prior art documents cited by the opponent" was very general, and not sufficient to enable the respondent (patent proprietor) to prepare itself properly.

In T 919/07, where the requests in writing concerning oral submissions by accompanying persons did not indicate what such submissions could contribute to the evidence on the file, the board exercised its discretion by deciding that the accompanying persons should be heard in the event that the board wished to ask them questions.

In T 1624/20 the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division mentioned that the appellant (opponent) had objected to Mr S.'s right to speak, citing the G 4/95 criteria as a basis. The opposition division, however, had allowed it, likewise relying on the G 4/95 criteria. In particular, it had considered that there was adequate information about Mr S.'s qualifications in the respondent's request, which described him as "an inventor and research engineer, expert, employee of C-TEC Constellium Technology Center". In its view, it was not essential to specify his academic qualifications. The board agreed that G 4/95 did not impose any obligation to specify academic qualifications or experience in the industry or to provide a curriculum vitae. The appellant had therefore failed to adduce convincing evidence that the opposition division had not exercised its discretion in accordance with the right principles or exercised it in an unreasonable way, and so exceeded the proper limits of its discretion. The board further considered that whether Mr S. belonged to the company of the respondent's representative (as opposed to the respondent's company) was irrelevant in this connection.

In T 2112/22, the representative had requested that an accompanying person, who was a partly qualified German patent lawyer (Patentassessor), be allowed to make oral submissions. The board noted that the person in question was not on the list of professional representatives before the EPO, and although they were indeed a Patentassessor, they were not a legal practitioner qualified in a contracting state within the meaning of Art. 134(8) EPC. Nor were they an expert in the particular technical field. The board pointed out that making oral submissions was not a right. Further, an accompanying person was not entitled to present all or most of the essential submissions in place of a representative unless there were special circumstances to justify that, such as the training of a future professional representative. The board, in the exercise of its discretion, had taken into account that the request had been made in good time and that the name and qualification of the person had been provided, but that the subject-matter of the submissions had not been specified in any concrete way. In the end, the board had given the floor to the accompanying person during the oral proceedings in so far as it had deemed it necessary to supplement the representative's presentation.