Bonum Certa Men Certa

EPO Referral Case G 1/21: It's Popcorn Time!

The EPO shitshow



Summary: In the referral case G 1/21, proceedings are due to resume on 2 July 2021

At the EPO, proceedings are due to resume shortly in the case G 1/21. That's less than 24 hours from now.



This is the controversial high profile referral case where the legitimacy of mandatory ViCo hearings without the consent of the parties is being challenged.

The proceedings were adjourned following a first mandatory ViCo hearing held on 28 May.

The next hearing - likewise by mandatory ViCo - is due to take place on Friday, 2 July.

In the meantime, the Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued the minutes [PDF] of the previous hearing of 28 May and an interlocutory decision [PDF] on the partiality objections discussed during that hearing.

At the same time, the appellant has filed its response to the comments of the President of the Office.

There isn't really any new information in the minutes of the hearing of 28 May and the associated interlocutory decision merely confirms what was already suspected, namely the dismissal of the appellant's partiality objections relied on formalistic "legal sophistry" which were used by the Enlarged Board to avoid any engagement with the substance of those objections.

"At the same time, the appellant has filed its response to the comments of the President of the Office."The remainder of this update will focus on the response to the comments of the President of the Office submitted on behalf of the appellant by its representatives from the Munich-based law firm, Isarpatent.

The appellant's written submission [PDF] begins by recalling that well-founded concerns exist regarding the conduct of oral proceedings by videoconference without the consent of the parties. Such an approach is incompatible with the right to oral proceedings as enshrined in Article 116 (1) EPC.

Reference is made to the interlocutory decision T€ 1807/15 [PDF] which triggered the referral procedure G 1/21. This interlocutory decision provides a thorough analysis of the different approaches for interpreting the term "oral proceedings" as used in Article 116 EPC. These approaches include considering the case law of the Boards of Appeal, literal and systematic interpretations, supplementary means of interpretation such as the Travaux preparatoires of the EPC, teleological interpretation, subsequent agreements and dynamic interpretation.

None of these approaches leads to an interpretation of Article 116 EPC which would support the proposition that it is lawful to hold oral proceedings by videoconference without the consent of the parties.

According to the appellant's representatives, the comments by the President of the Office fail to dispel the aforementioned concerns.

"None of these approaches leads to an interpretation of Article 116 EPC which would support the proposition that it is lawful to hold oral proceedings by videoconference without the consent of the parties."The appellant's written submission proceeds to recapitulate the approaches for the interpretation of the term "oral proceedings" as used in Article 116 EPC based on literal and systematic interpretation, supplementary means of interpretation, teleological interpretation and dynamic interpretation.

Reference is made in this regard to an amicus curiae brief submitted by VPP [PDF] - a German association of "intellectual property experts" - together with an associated legal opinion authored by Alexandra Speer and Ronja Schregle of the Department of Corporate and Intellectual Property Law at the Technical University of Munich School of Management.

The appellant's representatives also address the question of "dynamic interpretation" which is a relatively recent addition to the Enlarged Board's repertoire of legal fudge techniques. Here the appellant argues that it is doubtful as to whether "secondary legislation" (in the form of an amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal) could provide "a valid ground for a dynamic interpretation limiting substantial procedural rights" which are anchored in the primary law of the European Patent Convention itself.

Specific reference is made in this regard to Article 164 (2) EPC which stipulates that "[i]n case of conflict between the provisions of this Convention and those of the Implementing Regulations, the provisions of this Convention shall prevail". This provision "has to be taken as a limitation of the legislative powers of the Administrative Council".

"...changes in member states' authorities and judicial systems do not go as far as holding videoconferences against the will of the parties to the proceedings or without their consent, not even in the exceptional circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic."The appellant's representatives also discuss the differences between proceedings before first instance examination and opposition Divisions and proceedings before the Boards of Appeal. Here it is explained that appeal proceedings are wholly separate and independent from the proceedings at first instance and their function is to give a judicial decision upon the correctness of a preceding decision taken by an administrative department.

In appeal proceedings the principle of party disposition is to be considered when summoning to oral proceedings. Thus, even if one would follow the President's comments that the administrative character of proceedings before examining and opposition divisions must be taken into account in the interpretation of Article 116 EPC, such considerations cannot apply to judicial appeal procedures before the Boards of Appeal. Such a different interpretation is supported by the different legal principles underlying the appeal proceedings.

The appellant's representatives also refer to "societal developments in the Contracting States, which might arguably justify adapting the interpretation of the term €«oral proceedings'". Here it is noted that the use and societal acceptance of videoconferencing technology has increased during the coronavirus pandemic.

"...if a party objects to oral proceedings being held using videoconferencing technology, the court cannot force the party to use that format."However, changes in member states' authorities and judicial systems do not go as far as holding videoconferences against the will of the parties to the proceedings or without their consent, not even in the exceptional circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic.

Section 128a of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung), stipulates that courts can order proceedings to be held in the form of a videoconference. However, the court itself must sit in a courtroom, and the parties (or their representatives) are entitled to appear in the courtroom. Therefore, if a party objects to oral proceedings being held using videoconferencing technology, the court cannot force the party to use that format.

"...oral proceedings by videoconference without the consent of the party would violate the provisions of the German constitution."According to a legal opinion [PDF] by Prof. Siegfried Broß - a former judge at the German Federal Constitutional Court and long-time critic of the EPO's legal "no-man's land" of Battistelli - oral proceedings by videoconference without the consent of the party would violate the provisions of the German constitution.

Reference is also made to an amicus curiae brief submitted by Meissner Bolte [PDF], major German law firm specialising in the area of "industrial property right protection" which has been highly critical of the EPO's attempts to impose mandatory ViCo hearings.

The submission concludes by drawing attention to relevant decisions from national courts in Switzerland and France:

In Switzerland, the Federal Supreme Court (Schweizer Bundesgericht) recently decided that a lower court had no legal basis to order a video conference against the will of the parties. In particular, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not permissible to rely on the extraordinary situation resulting from the coronavirus pandemic as a justification for such measures.

In France, the Constitutional Court (Conseil d’État) decided that oral proceedings by videoconference without consent of the party amounted to "a serious and manifestly illegal infringement of ... the right to a fair trial".


In essence, the appellant's position is that Article 116 EPC guarantees the right of the parties to be heard at in-person oral proceedings. Holding oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference without the parties' consent is incompatible with the EPC and violates the legitimate expectation of a party to proceedings before the EPO that its well-established right to have oral proceedings in person will not be curtailed.

All in all, it seems fair to say that the appellant's representatives have presented a compelling case in support of their position that "the question referred to by the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.02 shall be answered in the negative":

That is, the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference is not compatible with the right to oral proceedings as enshrined in Article 116(1) EPC if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference.


Now it's over to the Enlarged Board of Appeal to decide the matter.

"With proceedings due to resume at 9:00 on 2 July, it’s popcorn time, folks…"It remains to be seen whether or not the EPO's highest judicial organ is capable of making a belated effort to assert its independence by acting in a manner that would go some way towards restoring public confidence in the integrity of the procedure.

The alternative is that - as many observers fear - the Enlarged Board will turn out to be a tame and submissive "lapdog" of Team Campinos.

With proceedings due to resume at 9:00 on 2 July, it's popcorn time, folks...

EPO popcorn time
Popcorn time at the EPO as proceedings in G 1/21 due to resume.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Promoting Microsoft Windows With LLM Slop
What is the policy at BetaNews regarding LLM slop?
Alex Oliva, the Potential 'Successor' of RMS, Has a New Web Site
More freedom for Alex Oliva
 
Links 16/02/2025: Nostalgia for Physical Media and the US Government Actively Promotes Pro-Kremlin Politicians in the EU
Links for the day
Gemini Links 16/02/2025:Life, Cynicism, and languages
Links for the day
Links 16/02/2025: Oligarchs "Collect Your Data and Control Your World", Global Temperatures Shoot Up
Links for the day
Links 16/02/2025: "Microsoft Is Laying Off Employees" and Internal Dissent Brewing at Facebook Over Regime Complicity
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, February 15, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, February 15, 2025
Links 15/02/2025: Harms to Health, Public Domain, and More
Links for the day
Gemini Links 15/02/2025: On Autistic People, AuraGem Over HTTPS
Links for the day
The Cyber Show (C|S) Speaks of the "Rise of the Nerd Reich."
This 'Valentine Episode' is quite good
Azure is Turning 17 This Year, Still Losing Money and Staff
Hallmark of pyramid schemes, deriving "value" out of things that do not really exist?
Strong Momentum for the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as Winter Approaches Its End in Boston or in the Northern Hemisphere
FSF's founder, Richard Stallman, gives another talk in Italy in 9 days from now
The 'Drunken Plagiarists' Are Harming Journalism About GNU/Linux
They lessen the incentive to do real journalism abut GNU/Linux
Female Nazis and racist Swiss women
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Richard Stallman on RISC-V and Free Hardware
Invidious is under attack by Google
Links 15/02/2025: Erasing of American Science and Tesla SLAPPing Critics
Links for the day
IDG 'Reviews' of GNU/Linux Now Contain LLM Slop
It's typically ads or commercials... or sometimes spin disguised as news
Gemini Links 15/02/2025: Spectacles and "Before Sunset", Moving Domains Out of the US
Links for the day
Microsoft Has Only $17,482 Million Left, "Cash on Hand" Sank 40 Billion Dollars in 2 Years
Microsoft runs low on money in the bank
YouTube Layoffs Mean That YouTube is Still Losing a Lot of Money (Net Income or Profit Almost Definitely Negative)
In more recent years Google defunded many vloggers
In Gopher and Gemini Protocol People Abandon Services Based in the United States
There's no resistance whatsoever
Python and Microsoft: Pandas Should Have Known OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Microsoft Excel Are Different and Competing Things
now we're meant to think that in order to open ODF files we need some functions with "Excel" in their name
Not Only Windows, Surface, and "Hey Hi" PCs; Microsoft's Hardware Ventures Are a Dumpster Fire; HoloLens Mixed Reality Hardware Now Axed Altogether and Staff is Miserable
Microsoft is in a terrible state
Certificate Authority (CA) Let's Encrypt Now Down to TEN (0.3% of the Whole) in Geminispace
The number of capsules that use Let's Encrypt is, according to Lupa, about to fall to single-digit figures
Links 15/02/2025: University Price Hikes and Copyright Action Against Slop Companies
Links for the day
Slopwatch: All Those New 'Articles' Are Fake and Crafted by Chatbots (LLM Slop)
Google News is promoting these as "Linux" news; they're not even made by humans
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, February 14, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, February 14, 2025
Gemini Links 14/02/2025: Mysterious Friend and "Eight by Eight"
Links for the day
They Will Never Leave Linus Torvalds Alone, Rust is Just Another Way to Cause Instability and Infighting in Linux
We already identified the Rust "community" as troublemakers more than 5 years ago and we wrote about the evidence
Apple: Social Justice or Social Nationalism?
Remember to buy Apple, folks
Links 14/02/2025: Mass Layoffs at Sophos, Chatbots Failing Very Badly, "DOGE as a National Cyberattack"
Links for the day
Moving Away From Certificate Authorities (CAs) Like Let's Encrypt Means Taking Away From the US Government the Power to 'Censor' Sites by Revoking Certificates
Gemini capsule is cheap to run and easy (easier than a Web site) to maintain. More people disillusioned and frustrated with social control media flock to it.
BetaNews' Managing Editor Wayne William Took Charge of GNU/Linux Articles and His Articles Are Real (He Actually Wrote Them)
We are frankly relieved to see that Wayne William recognised the problem and did something about it
Links 14/02/2025: Publicity Rights Violated (ByteDance), Bribes to Trump Passed via Social Control Media 'Settlements' Again
Links for the day
Gemini Links 14/02/2025: Constitution, Cosmic DE, and More
Links for the day
Slopwatch: Anti-Linux Articles Published by Bots, Dominating Google News
So a lot of the Web is Microsoft chatbot-generated anti-Linux FUD
Links 14/02/2025: Measles Outbreak in Texas, Zelensky Warns Russia Will Attack a NATO Country
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, February 13, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, February 13, 2025