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 Register Bill
The Register MS - putting the "MS" in your centre of the universe
Analogies for "Memory Safety" in Rust
Don't worry, it's Rust! It can do anything!
 
Microsoft Sites Now Talking About September's Mass Layoffs at Microsoft
It's noteworthy that even Microsoft's MSN now covers the latest revelations about mass layoffs
Gemini Links 06/09/2025: SpellBinding Moving and "The Cloud" Ridiculed
Links for the day
Slopwatch: On "the Apology Industry", Chatbots (Punchbag for Customers), and Fake Articles About "Linux"
"news reporting priorities changed"
Links 06/09/2025: "Covid Incidence on the Rise" and Many Attacks on the Press Worldwide
Links for the day
Nobody Denies That SecureBoot Will Cause Problems After September 11
Not even Microsoft
Gemini Links 06/09/2025: Infinite Scrolling and Posting from Emacs
Links for the day
Links 06/09/2025: GitHub Meltdown Over Slop, "U.S. Jury Says Google Should Pay $425 Million in Privacy Lawsuit"
Links for the day
Despite Its Severe Financial Problems Gnome Foundation Inc Paid Rosanna Yuen Over 100,000 Dollars Last Year
maybe relocation should be considered
The "Left" and the Right"
It poisons everything
Mozilla and Rust Are Not Leftists
they're part of the mass consumerism machine
Disposable to Microsoft
There is an extensive set of people who got used by Microsoft, only to be thrown away a month later or a year later or a decade later
The UEFI 9/11 - Part VII - This Coming Week Many PCs Will Refuse to Boot "Linux" (Because of Microsoft's Expired Certificate)
The real solution is, disable "secure boot" or "SecureBoot" while it's still possible. [...] Just like submarine patents, a lot of this problem was "hibernating" for a while
The Thing Nobody in Red Hat Wants to Talk About Openly
There is a real sentiment or worry among Red Hatters, Europeans and Americans in particulars (because of higher salary expectations)
Slopwatch: Small Parade of Fake News About "Linux" and Scams Borrowing the Name (or Word) "Linux"
In practice, LLMs are a risk
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, September 05, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, September 05, 2025
Genini Links 05/09/2025: Community, ROOPHLOCH, and PITkit
Links for the day
Links 05/09/2025: Vaccine Sceptics Poison the Well, Two Exploited Vulnerabilities Patched in Android
Links for the day
Gemini Links 05/09/2025: Logitech Lift and DIY Gemini Servers
Links for the day
Links 05/09/2025: Sainsbury's Caught Spying on In-Store Shoppers and Microsoft "OpenAI is Using Legal Threats to Harass its Critics"
Links for the day
BASIC Predates Microsoft by Over a Decade, Microsoft-Controlled Sites Like The Register MS Don't Want You to Know This
The state of the media is really bad when it relies a lot on oligarchs' money and is appointing editors who are working for oligarchs
Brian Kernighan, "Only Third to Dennis Richie and Ken Thompson" (UNIX), Agreed With Someone Who Said Rust Was Just Hype, Should Not Replace C
17 hours ago
Reminder: Microsoft's "Secure Boot" Certificate for "Linux" Will be Expired in One Week
Many PCs won't manage to 'rotate' to another certificate
"Many of the Red Hat Employees Are Still Looking for Work"
Shame on IBM's CEO
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, September 04, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, September 04, 2025
Microsoft Started With Code Literally From The Trash, Nothing Has Improved Since
The reality is, there are systems and code that are reliable. But they're not Microsoft's.
Hypothesis That New McKinsey/Microsoft Executive Inside Red Hat Will Outsource Research and Development Operations to India (Like They Do in IBM)
IBM is floundering
Slopwatch: Scams, Fake Articles About "Linux", Plagiarism, and Worse
Perhaps some time soon the LLMs or the "Big LLMs" will run out of money (to borrow) and go offline, leaving those slopfarms in a tough place
Gemini Links 04/09/2025: Means of Production and Rusting Out
Links for the day
Links 04/09/2025: Science, Hardware, and Eyes on China
Links for the day
Gemini Links 04/09/2025: Digital Minimalism and Social Control Media
Links for the day
IBM's GNU/Linux Divestment, Based on Hard But Anecdotal Evidence (IBM Fails to Recognise How Much Money It Made and Can Still Make From "Linux")
Love us or hate us, a lot of what we've been saying about Red Hat under IBM turns out to be rather accurate
Links 04/09/2025: Massive Microsoft Staff Cuts (Barely Reported), "Strange Conspiracy Theory Is Reportedly Spreading Inside OpenAI"
Links for the day
Activists Can Win, But Keep an Eye on the Ball and on the Trophy
GitHub is dying, it was a loss-making trap, not free hosting
Gemini Links 04/09/2025: Katrina Remembered, Distracted Driving, and Virtual Economics
Links for the day
At This Point It's No Longer Matthew Garrett But People Who Fund Matthew Garrett (or Companies That Fund His SLAPPs Against My Wife and I)
The only thing worse than misogynists are misogynists who fail to respect other people's right to go on holiday
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, September 03, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, September 03, 2025
The UEFI 9/11 - Part VI - This Serious Harm Was Planned for Over a Decade, Not an Accident or Merely Some Misfortune
The term "Serious Harm" is legally meaningful here
GNOME Unfit for Diversity and Inclusion
GNOME's leadership is using "bad words"
Brodie Robertson Addressing the Recently-Discovered Comments
Most people probably knew nothing about this until he wrote a response
Red Hat QA Team "Had Shrunk by Half Over the Past Year." (After IBM Divestment)
If Red Hat's workforce is being moved to the East, then RHEL can become a national security problem
Slopwatch: "Open Source" and "Linux" News Faked, Made by Bots and Entered Into Google News
Spam combined with slop about "Linux" has entered Google News