{"id":27358,"date":"2021-04-01T18:07:00","date_gmt":"2021-04-01T16:07:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/publikationen\/videoconferencing-at-the-epo-springboard-into-a-digital-age\/"},"modified":"2022-12-27T14:20:48","modified_gmt":"2022-12-27T13:20:48","slug":"videoconferencing-at-the-epo-springboard-into-a-digital-age","status":"publish","type":"publikationen","link":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/cn\/publikationen\/videoconferencing-at-the-epo-springboard-into-a-digital-age\/","title":{"rendered":"Videoconferencing at the EPO \u2013 Springboard Into a Digital Age?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

Dr Eva Ehlich & Angela Zumstein in the series<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The question of which communication channels people trust more in the case of inconsistent messages was investigated in a number of studies conducted by the Iranian-American psychologist Albert Mehrabian. His formula, repeatedly replicated, according to which 7% of people trust the spoken word, 38% trust vocal expression and 55% trust body language, demonstrates the importance of non-verbal communication channels that are often lost in virtual settings. (1)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO will soon decide on an interesting question: may oral proceedings before the EPO in principle be conducted by videoconference, even against the will of the parties?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In May 2020, no one would have expected that appeal case T 1807\/15 would lead to a landmark decision. After all, it only related to the maintenance (or not) of a patent relating to a radio frequency amplifier, a routine type of case at the EPO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this case was only the first in a long line of similar cases. Since the first Corona wave began in 2020, quite a few oral hearings at the EPO have had to be postponed. The oral proceedings were finally scheduled for February 2021. But not entirely surprisingly, the representative of the London-based patent proprietors requested that the oral proceedings be postponed once again. The reason? He was prevented from attending in person on account of the prevailing Corona situation and the ongoing travel restrictions between Germany and the UK. A videoconference was also deemed impracticable – the case would after all require simultaneous translation. This also seemed to make sense to the opposing party, who shortly afterwards expressed its objection to the oral proceedings being conducted via videoconference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Up to that point, conducting oral proceedings via videoconference was contingent on the consent of the parties. However, statistical evidence shows that little use was made of videoconferencing. As a result, the backlog of pending first instance proceedings continued to grow, because the Corona restrictions had led to a stay of almost all proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How to clear a Corona backlog? – 360 decisions per month!<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The rapidly growing backlog was and is frustrating for the EPO administration – especially considering the successes that had already been achieved and the shorter first instance appeal procedures in the years immediately preceding the Corona pandemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the current backlog is to be eliminated by the end of 2022, about 360 cases per month will need to be dealt with. This is stated in the progress report of November 2020. The report concludes by recommending that oral proceedings be conducted via videoconferencing, with or without the consent of the parties. (2) Per decision of 10 November 2020, the President of the EPO followed this recommendation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A bumpy start<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

We need to take ourselves back to March 2020 when the “Corona crisis” more or less officially began. The first wave rolled in. People started social distancing. Meetings were cancelled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a variety of reasons, it became difficult to conduct oral hearings with physical presence. These include, in particular, travel restrictions, general social distancing restrictions and hygiene measures. This was true for small businesses as well as for large institutions. However, while the Boards of Appeal still continued to conduct oral proceedings with physical presence under strict hygiene conditions, the EPO had already suspended such hearings until 31 December 2020, later extended to 15 September 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike the Office, during the year 2020 the Boards of Appeal conducted oral proceedings in different formats, either<\/p>\n\n\n\n