[Translate to Englisch:]
  • Gottfried Schüll, Dr. Henning Sternemann, Jan Ackermann, Dr. Natalie Kirchhofer

EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal postpones decision on video-hearings

Düsseldorf, June 1, 2021 – The decision on the legality of the European Patent Office’s (EPO) regulation on video-hearings was postponed on May 28, 2021 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal after several hours of proceedings. At the core of the proceedings is the question of whether holding video-hearings without the consent of the parties is compatible with Article 116 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) (G 1/21).

After a non-public part of the proceedings was concluded, the Enlarged Board of Appeal pointed out that the recently submitted challenges on grounds of suspected partiality (see C&F press release of May 27, 2021) were to be rejected. However, it agreed to postpone the hearing on the actual point at issue, as the claimant had been served with the EPO President’s statement only a few days before the proceedings, apparently due to an internal error at the EPO. The claimant therefore did not have sufficient time to adequately comment on the statement, as required by Article 9 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s Rules of Procedure. The claimant has now been given one month to comment. A new date for the oral hearing is expected to be set for July.

Prior to this, Cohausz & Florack (C&F), together with other renowned German patent law firms, had taken a position in the form of an amicus curiae brief opposing compulsory video-hearings (see C&F press release of April 26, 2021), above all against the backdrop of the European Convention on Human Rights and general principles of the rule of law. The delay by the Enlarged Board of Appeal is sobering, in C&F’s opinion: “The decision on whether compulsory video-hearings are lawful is now dragging on, creating frustration and uncertainty on all sides,” says Dr. Henning Sternemann, patent attorney and partner at C&F. “We hope that the Enlarged Board of Appeal will address the issue in a swift and unbiased manner and ultimately recognize that video-hearings can only be justified with the consent of all parties.”

 

Picture credits: mhong84 AdobeStock.com