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

The Right to Punch People (Apparently)
At Brett Wilson, Brett's job title is "Head of Crime" and Wilson normalises calls for violence
Brett Wilson LLP Seem to Have Had Only One Litigation Client in 2025, He Was Previously Charged, Just Like the Serial Strangler From Microsoft (Whom They Now Represent)
Karma is superstition, regulators are not
Project 2030 to Cover How "Project 2025"-Styled Anti-Media Zealots From America Targeted Techrights and Tux Machines
The common denominator is also their attacks on women
Brett Wilson LLP Failed to Meet Deadlines Set by Judge 7 Months Earlier, Tried to Ruin Our Holiday, Then Had the Audacity to Ask Us for Over 3,000 Pounds for Its Own Lateness
As a matter of principle we will never respond to assassin while we are on holiday
Americans Attacking British Sites Only Months After They Leave America
We find it kind of funny if not ironic that this site, originally an American site, got legal harassment only from Americans and only months after it had moved to the UK
Despite Losing Over a Quarter Million Dollars a Year Software in the Public Interest (SPI) Gives Helping Hand to Libreboot
SPI's financial state depends a lot on its public image or its reputation
If You Want to Know the Future, Listen to the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Andy Farnell
We're sure the FSF will have plenty of its own output
 
Links 19/09/2025: Lobbyist of American GAFAM Becomes Data Protection Commissioner in Europe
Links for the day
Links 19/09/2025: Media Freedom Ceases to Exist in US, "Consider Dropping Twitter/X"
Links for the day
Gemini Links 19/09/2025: Thinking and Insect Bites
Links for the day
Microsoft E.E.E.: Git Will Now (or Very Soon) Fully Depend on Rust, Which is Controlled by Microsoft
Microsoft now makes Git dependent on Rust, or making Git dependent on GitHub, which is proprietary
Slop or Fake Articles Have Turned Linux Journal From a Pioneering/Trailblazing "Linux" Magazine Into a Nuisance
some sites with former reputation - good reputation - turn into cesspools
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, September 18, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, September 18, 2025
On Claims That After Bluewashing Red Hat Will Increasingly Become an Indian Company
Discussed this week (long and detailed)
Slopwatch: Google Helps Plagiarism and Sends Traffic to Ripoff Artists
That Google as a company helps spamfarms is noteworthy
Links 18/09/2025: A Taliban Ban on Internet Access and Troubled US Job Market
Links for the day
Gemini Links 18/09/2025: Computer Literacy and Accessing Alhena's Database
Links for the day
Links 18/09/2025: US War on Media (Truth Banned, Cancel Culture by the Hard Right), NYT Chief Executive Warns Cheeto is Deploying ‘Anti-press Playbook'
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, September 17, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, September 17, 2025
Slopwatch: Fake Articles, Fake Text, Fake Images, Negative Slant on "Linux"
Google News has lost its value; the signal-to-noise ratio has fallen off a cliff
Gemini Links 17/09/2025: Relax-and-Recover on Proxmox and New Smolweb File Transfer Service
Links for the day
Fact: EFF Got Corrupted by Corporate Money. Microsoft Lunduke (Political Noise): The Issue With EFF is, It Kills Babies.
Microsoft Lunduke - as usual - finds a way to make it about abortions
Pacing Publication Up a Bit
The news cycles have gotten rather light and slow
Links 17/09/2025: Power Outages, Digital Controls, and Attacks on the Mainstream Media (by Insecure and Corrupt Dictators)
Links for the day
Gemini Links 17/09/2025: Flashing LineageOS and ROOPHLOCH
Links for the day
Links 17/09/2025: Long COVID Study, "Exposing Pegasus", and Chatbots Exposing Sensitive Data
Links for the day
Links 17/09/2025: Secret Settlement for Internet Archive and Google’s LLM Slop Summaries Attracting Lawsuits
Links for the day
The True Cost of 'Generative Models'
Funded and promoted by the companies that profit from the waste
'Big Slop' Attacks Contemporary Information/Knowledge and Creative Works, 'Big Copyright' (Cartel) Attacks the Old
Someone at IA will hopefully "blow the whistle" on what they actually agreed
Why We Find It Difficult to Trust Rust
A comparison between C/C++ and Rust
Slop Nihilism is Funded by Big Oil
Eventually human civilisation will destroy itself
Watching the OSI: Our Series Will Carry on Irrespective of the Chief's 'Resignation'
the OSI isn't even the real guardian of the term "Open Source"
Professor Eben Moglen Recovering From Open Heart Surgery
From his public pages (this is not secret)
Just What LibreOffice Needs? Another Language? (Rust)
what's all this concern about memory safety?
Many Microsoft Managers Are Leaving
"Hey hi" chaff or chaff about "hey hi" cannot eternally distract from the difficulties inside the company
There Are Red Hat (IBM) Layoffs, But Google News is Infested With Slopfarms
It contributes a lot to misinformation and it encourages plagiarism
Tomorrow, Microsoft's Tim Anderson's 'The Register MS' Offshoot Will Have Been Inactive for 2 Months (There's Also a Slop Problem)
We've already caught The Register MS using LLM slop for articles
Microsoft's Chief Legal Officer Leaves Microsoft After Nearly 30 Years
And not retiring
Even Windows Users Are Having Problems With "Secure Boot"
When it comes to security - Microsoft strives for the very opposite
Another Competition Crime of Microsoft, Long Facilitated and Advocated by a Bad Actor, Who is Funded by a Third Party to Commit Extortion Against People Who Have Correctly and Repeatedly Warned About It for Over 13 Year
We must always go back to the core issues
3 More Reasons to Replace Mozilla Firefox With LibreWolf
Thankfully there are de-enshittified versions of Firefox
USA Not a Place for Free Speech
In America, as in the US, the attacks seem more enhanced or advanced these days
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, September 16, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Links 17/09/2025: Google Layoffs in "Hey Hi" (AI), Perplexity Hit With More "Hey Hi" (Plagiarism) Lawsuits
Links for the day
Gemini Links 17/09/2025: Reclaiming Things in a Digital Age and Moon Phases in CGI
Links for the day