Bonum Certa Men Certa

Virtual Injustice -- Part 2: The ViCo Oral Proceedings of 28 May 2021

Previously in the series:

  1. Virtual Injustice -- Part 1: António's Increasingly Wonky Legal Fudge Factory


Virtual EBoA session
ViCo oral proceedings in case no. G 1/21 were held on 28 May 2021.



Summary: More than half a day of theatrics and stonewalling by the EBA may have done a damage so enormous to the EBA's credibility that irrespective of the final outcome the case is already seen as compromised

On Friday 28 May 2021 oral proceedings were held before the Enlarged Board of Appeal in the high-profile referral case no. G 1/21.



Shortly after the proceedings were opened at 9:00 (Central European Time), the Enlarged Board decided to exclude the public while it conducted an "in camera" discussion with the appellant concerning a number of partiality objections which had been raised in its written submissions of 24 May and other contentious matters.

The discussion on the partiality objections took up the whole of the morning. Public proceedings finally resumed at around 13:00 when the chairman of the Enlarged Board announced that the appellant's partiality objections had been rejected as "inadmissible".

"Public proceedings finally resumed at around 13:00 when the chairman of the Enlarged Board announced that the appellant's partiality objections had been rejected as "inadmissible"."This is understood to mean that the Enlarged Board didn't actually rule on the merits of the appellant's objections but rather decided not to admit them to the proceedings, presumably on the basis of some legal technicality, for example that they had been late-filed.

Further analysis on this point will have to await the Enlarged Board's written decision.

However, this was not the end of the discussion about formalities. The Enlarged Board was unable to proceed and discuss the substantial legal aspects of the case because, in addition to its partiality objections, the appellant had also raised an objection about a breach of its right to be heard.

"The Enlarged Board was unable to proceed and discuss the substantial legal aspects of the case because, in addition to its partiality objections, the appellant had also raised an objection about a breach of its right to be heard."More specifically the appellant objected that it had not been given sufficient time to consider and respond to the President's submissions on the referral. As a matter of fact, the appellant had only received formal notification of these submissions a few days before the hearing.

According to the appellant's representatives, such a short period of time was not enough for them to discuss the submissions with their client (especially given that their client had been on holiday at the time in question).

The appellant complained that the Enlarged Board's actions breached its right to be heard as explicitly provided for under Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (RPEBA).

This led to a further round of discussion in public.

"The appellant complained that the Enlarged Board's actions breached its right to be heard as explicitly provided for under Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (RPEBA)."The representative of the President argued that the President's comments had been published on the EPO website for all to see on 28 April 2021 and had been widely reported and discussed. It was argued from this quarter that the appellant should have been aware of the President's comments well before they received the formal notification from the EPO.

The appellant countered that it could not be expected to continuously monitor for submissions published somewhere on the EPO website. What was at stake here was the appellant's right to a proper formal notification of the submissions which safeguarded the right to respond guaranteed under Article 9 RPEBA.

After the public discussion, the chairman announced a break for deliberation.

"However, it is difficult to see how this admirable aspiration squares with the fact that it took the Board about 6 hours to work out that it had overlooked its own procedural rules, in particular the appellant's right to be heard in accordance with Article 9 RPEBA."The proceedings resumed some time shortly after 15:00.

The chairman announced that the Enlarged Board had decided on an adjournment of the proceedings to allow the appellant to prepare a written response to the submissions of the EPO President and that the proceedings would resume during the first week of July.

In announcing the decision, chairman expressed the desire of the Enlarged Board to deal with case G€ 1/21 in “a timely manner.”

However, it is difficult to see how this admirable aspiration squares with the fact that it took the Board about 6 hours to work out that it had overlooked its own procedural rules, in particular the appellant's right to be heard in accordance with Article 9 RPEBA.

It is worth recalling that the proceedings of 28 May were originally scheduled by Josefsson in a cynical and manipulative attempt to rubber-stamp his own decision as quickly as possible.

If the Enlarged Board had rescheduled the proceedings – as it should have done – that would not only have given the newly composed panel sufficient time to take stock of the case. It would also have given the appellant a proper opportunity to exercise its rights under Article 9 RPEBA.

The fact that such a course of action was not adopted in the aftermath of the intermediate decision of 17 May indicates that everything is being done in this case to prioritise "speed" at the expense of "diligence" (to quote the appellant).

"All in all, it doesn't augur well for the state of judicial independence at the EPO."The judicial actors involved in the case will undoubtedly attempt to justify their actions - at least among themselves - from the perspective of "political expediency".

However, to the outside observer they seem to be acting in a manner which is both legally and ethically questionable.

All in all, it doesn't augur well for the state of judicial independence at the EPO.

In the next part we will turn our attention to some of the other participants in the oral proceedings of 28 May, more specifically the legal team representing the EPO President.

Recent Techrights' Posts

IBM's CEO Roasted, Sizzled and Grilled for Dumb and Inconsistent Vapourware Promises
It looks like being a chronic liar is what it takes to lead the company once synonymous with computing
Who Imitates Who? Plagiarist as Client (From Microsoft), 'Plagiarism' at the Law Firm?
let's revisit the subject
 
Links 11/06/2025: More Vulnerabilities Found in 'Smart' Phones, China Extends Reach in the Pacific
Links for the day
Gemini Links 11/06/2025: Grain and Steam Next Fest
Links for the day
Links 11/06/2025: "Quantum" Hype From IBM, US Closer to Martial Law, and “The Nation” Celebrates Milestone
Links for the day
IBM's Goal Is Not (and Never Was) Computer Users' Freedom
More than 1.5 decades ago I found IBM to be an "ally of convenience" because of OpenDocument Format (ODF)
Wayland Shows the IBM/Red Hat Way of Doing Things
IBM is trying to 'kill' X
GitHub is Proprietary, Controlled by Microsoft, and GPL Violation Warehouse
"IRS tax filing software [will be] released to the people as free software" ... In general this is good news
Slopfarm Catastrophe
Seems like BetaNews (or BetaNoise) has just suffered a major data loss and restored the site from a week-old backup
Abuse Inside the Polish Patent Office (UPRP) - Part VIII: Illegal Working Conditions
How many people need to die for these people to get their massive salaries?
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, June 10, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Links 10/06/2025: Apple Hype and Physical Attacks on Bloggers
Links for the day
Gemini Links 10/06/2025: Loon Lake, Farming, and Forth
Links for the day
Links 10/06/2025: Jaws at 50 and US Democracy Crushed Very Rapidly (Martial Law Seems Imminent)
Links for the day
Abuse Inside the Polish Patent Office (UPRP) - Part VII: Washing Their Hands After Corruption and Abuse
"Tragedy or comedy?"
Culling Bad RSS Feeds of Bad Sites
Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater
If 'Microsoft v Techrights' is Dealt With by a 'Microsoft Court' (or a Court Outsourced to Microsoft)
More on that later
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, June 09, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, June 09, 2025
Gemini Protocol Turns Six in 10 Days From Now
If you haven't tried it yet, then give it a go today
Live as You Preach
technology is fast becoming dysphoric
Gemini Links 09/06/2025: Addition Addiction and Nitride
Links for the day
Links 09/06/2025: Science, Hardware Projects, and Democracy Receding
Links for the day
Computers Got Smaller, So GNU/Linux Got Bigger
Many people here recognise the lack of urgency (or need) to get expensive new laptops
BetaNews is a Plagiarism and LLM Slop Hub, the Chief Editor Isn't Addressing This Problem Anymore
SS Fagioli is basically a parasite leeching off or exploiting other people's work
Links 09/06/2025: Chaos in Los Angeles and Hurricane Season
Links for the day
GNU/Linux Grows at Windows' Expense and Microsoft Trolls Infest and Maliciously Target Articles About It
Microsoft is - and has long been - organised crime
They Say I'm Mr. Bombastic
They didn't take good lawyers
Links 09/06/2025: Windows TCO and Many Data Breaches
Links for the day
Abuse Inside the Polish Patent Office (UPRP) - Part VI: Political Stunts by Former President Edyta Demby-Siwek and the Connection to Profound Corruption at EUIPO
it's like a money-laundering operation where one politician rewards another at taxpayers' expense
Gemini Links 09/06/2025: Pipelines and Splitgate
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, June 08, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, June 08, 2025