In T 986/00 (OJ 2003, 554) the board held, with reference to Art. 113(2) EPC and Art. 11(3) RPBA 2003 (Art. 15(3) RPBA 2007), that a patent proprietor who chooses not to be represented at oral proceedings should ensure that he has filed all the amendments he wishes to be considered. All the more when, as in the case at issue, the proprietor had been expressly warned about the possible necessity of amending the claims and the description.
In T 1010/13 oral proceedings took place in the presence of appellant I only. Although appellants II, III and IV did not attend the oral proceedings, the board held that the principle of the right to be heard pursuant to Art. 113(1) EPC was observed since that article affords only the opportunity to be heard, and by absenting itself from the oral proceedings a party gives up that opportunity (see the explanatory note to Art. 15(3) RPBA 2007 cited in T 1704/06, CA/133/02 dated 12 November 2002); see also chapter V.A.4.5.3 a) "Absence of applicant (patent proprietor) from oral proceedings".