EPO. The decision G1/21 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office decided on the question to what extent oral proceedings in the form of videoconferences are admissible before the Boards of Appeal without infringing the right of the parties to be heard.

In doing so, the Enlarged Board of Appeal determined as follows:

"During a general state of emergency affecting the ability of the parties to participate in oral proceedings in person at the EPO's premises, the conduct of oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal in the form of a video conference is compatible with the EPC, even if not all parties to the proceedings have consented to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a video conference."

In the now published reasoning of the decision, the Enlarged Board of Appeal states that a non-admission of oral proceedings as a video conference during the said state of emergency would, in fact, prevent oral proceedings from taking place per se. However, this was contrary to the EPC’s objectives, according to which innovation and progress were to be promoted by the system for granting European patents, i.e. essentially the EPO. In contrast, the disadvantages of video conferences to be feared were in the background during the state of emergency and, accordingly, did not weigh so heavily that the right to be heard or to a fair trial would be seriously impaired.

At the same time, however, the Enlarged Board of Appeal makes it clear that this case law must be seen in the specific circumstances of emergency. Since no case was explicitly decided after the omission of the pandemic circumstances and the restrictions associated therewith , it is to be expected that the video conferences before the Boards of Appeal will only be seen as a transitional solution and that oral proceedings at the EPO will take place on site again following the pandemic situation.