IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Friday, July 23, 2021

*Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes Audiocast

*Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021

*asusbox (~rianne@y7ngpevrg6hvk.irc) has joined #techbytes

*libertybox (~schestowitz_log@y7ngpevrg6hvk.irc) has joined #techbytes

*schestowitz (~roy@y7ngpevrg6hvk.irc) has joined #techbytes

*irc.techrights.org sets mode +q #techbytes schestowitz

*Techrights-sec (~quassel@y7ngpevrg6hvk.irc) has joined #techbytes

http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/07/16/case-g1-21-eba-gives-no-clarity-about-videoconferencing/

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jul 23 02:59

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Case G1/21: EBA gives no clarity about videoconferencing - Kluwer Patent Blog

schestowitz

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

JULY 16, 2021 AT 11:51 PM

schestowitz

I would not be as negative for the time being and would wait for the reasons.

schestowitz

As I am an optimist, for the time being, I rather feel the glass is half-full rather than half-empty.

schestowitz

It is clear that EPO’s management will be making any move in order to keep mandatory OP by ViCo as otherwise the New Normal cannot be implemented.

schestowitz

What is however annoying is the recent tendency of the EBA to rewrite the questions so as to not answer the referred questions. This propensity should brought to an end so that it does not end up by sanctuarising “dynamic interpretations”.

schestowitz

Dynamic interpretations can change with time and instead of giving legal certainty they increase legal uncertainty. The founders of the EPC wanted to help legal certainty, but this aim seems to have disappeared.

schestowitz

One More for the Road

schestowitz

JULY 17, 2021 AT 11:51 AM

schestowitz

Unfortunately the EBA´s decision on a restricted issue only might leave the suspicion that the Board actually had an opinion on the broader issue – as actually raised by the generic wording of new Article 15a RPBA – which would not have met the Office management´s obvious expectations and that it simply did not dare to confront the latter.

schestowitz

One more blow at the Boards independence?

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

JULY 17, 2021 AT 5:29 PM

schestowitz

There is however another aspect which also plays an important role. According to Art 15a(3) RPBA20, when holding an OP by ViCo, or even on the premises, the deciding BA does not have to sit together at the same location. The problem at stake is thus broader and concerns as well Art 15a(3) RPBA20.

schestowitz

Without mandatory OP by ViCo and the possibility of a BA to decide without sitting together, a similar measure cannot be put in place in the first instance. Without this double possibility, there is no New Normal!

schestowitz

The problem is that it is difficult to find a proper basis in the EPC for this New Normal.

schestowitz

This is a point of view which has been mentioned by two former VP1 in a publication of “Le Blog.du Droit Européen des Brevets”

https://europeanpatentcaselaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/vers-une-nouvelle-normalite.html

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-europeanpatentcaselaw.blogspot.com | Le Blog du Droit Européen des Brevets: "Vers une nouvelle normalité": contribution de MM. Jacques Michel et Willy Minnoye

schestowitz

A “satisfactory” reply of the EBA in G 1/21 is thus of prime importance for the management of the EPO.

schestowitz

Such a New Normal could however be established after amending the EPC according to Art 172, taking duly into account that Art 164(2) which provides that in case of conflict between Rules and EPC, the latter prevails. So the AC is, in principle, not free to amend the Rules at will.

schestowitz

Last but not least, there is no trace of OP by ViCo, and even less in mandatory form, in the EPC and its Rules of Implementation. This makes things even more complicated.

schestowitz

During the OP of 02.07., the president’s representatives claimed that it was possible to amend the EPC by secondary legislation as exemplified in G 3/19. This argument is neither convincing nor compelling, as there exists a proper mechanism to amend the EPC.

schestowitz

Anon Y. Mouse

schestowitz

JULY 17, 2021 AT 7:38 PM

schestowitz

Once upon a time I was told, by a person very much in the know with decades of experience within the European institutions, that part of the reason that CJEU judgments are often so brief and/or so impenetrable is that, in the absence of a tradition of allowing different judges to give dissenting opinions (or even opinions which agree with the conclusion but disagree as to the reasoning), any points which are not the consistent view of the majority

schestowitz

of judges are excluded. Thus, the overall judgment reflects only the essentials of the points on which a majority of the panel could agree. This tends to make the decisions very fact-specific, and makes the rationale behind the decisions quite impenetrable, never mind establishing a clear test or broad principle that could be applied to future cases.

schestowitz

I wonder whether something similar is at work in recent EBA decisions at the EPO, and in particular in this one. That the order is so notably limited to approving something which hardly anyone had questioned, when the discussion at the hearing and the questioning from the EBA members was so wide-ranging, makes me wonder whether the members of the EBA simply could not agree among themselves on how to address the broader points that were at stake.

schestowitz

Attentive Obsever

schestowitz

JULY 18, 2021 AT 7:01 AM

schestowitz

@AnonY.Mouse,

schestowitz

When looking at Art 18(2) RPEBA the possibility of a dissenting opinion of a minority of members of a panel is foreseen. However the dissenting opinion will only be published if the majority agrees.

schestowitz

Neither the names nor the extent of the minority will be published.

schestowitz

When looking at Art 16(1) RPEBA only members of the panel may be participate in the deliberations, but other officers(?) can be present if authorized by the chair of the panel. I understand that the registrar might be present, but the wording does not exclude the presence of other members of the BA.

schestowitz

As the present chair of the panel is a subordinate it cannot be excluded that the chairman’s arm might be twisted to accept the presence of more than the Registrar.

schestowitz

In view of the history of the case anything could this happen.

schestowitz

It is clear that with the original quatuor there was no surprise as to what the decision will be.

schestowitz

The power of nuisance of the remaining duet is not be ignored, and the present order is probably the result of a compromise.

schestowitz

We really have to wait for the reasons to know what is the real opinion of the EBA.

schestowitz

francis hagel

schestowitz

JULY 18, 2021 AT 6:46 PM

schestowitz

It is very likely that as suggested by previous commenters, there was no consensus within the EBA for a position addressing the full scope of the referral and the restriction of the scope allowed common ground to be found.

schestowitz

It should be no surprise for the issue of compulsory VICOs to be very divisive. Looking at the national courts competent on patent issues, there is a clear divergence in particular between UK and French judges, see this excerpt from « Patent cases decline across Europe but courts report increasing complexity » by K. Richter, JUVE Patent –July 12, 2021 :

schestowitz

“In the UK, Colin Birss – at the time still at the High Court – had already conducted the first patent hearing via Skype at the end of March. As the lockdown eased last summer, the court also introduced a hybrid system. In Germany, Munich Regional Court held video hearings at an early stage. The 7th Civil Chamber conducted its first case at the end of April 2020.

schestowitz

In France, however, this type of hearing has not become established for patent cases. In an interview with JUVE Patent, first president and judge at the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris, Nathalie Sabotier, acknowledged that judging a case purely by written submissions is, for patent cases, inadequate.

schestowitz

However, in large proceedings where only a limited number of people are allowed in the courtroom, involved parties that are not actively part of the oral proceedings can join via video. For example, the two-day opening hearing in the dispute between Intellectual Ventures against Orange and Bouygues Telecom utilised this function.”

schestowitz

It is ironic that the EBA’s response can be depicted – and criticised – as « infra petita » i.e. a a failure of the judge in civil proceedings to address an issue raised by a party. This is commonly expressed in EPO proceedings as a failure to satisfy a party’s « right to be heard ». Apparently BOAs are not entitled to such « right to be heard » in their referrals…

schestowitz

Hopefully the reasons of the decision will bring insights and at least a modicum of predictability to EPO users.

schestowitz

Regarding the contribution by former DG1 VPs Jacques Michel and Willy Minnoye on the “New Normal” cited by DXThomas, readers are advised that an English translation is available in T. Bausch’s blog post of May 11, 2021.

schestowitz

The Convention watchdog

schestowitz

JULY 19, 2021 AT 10:28 AM

schestowitz

In referral proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the referring Board cannot raise issues at will. Rather, a decision on the referred question has to be required for deciding the case underlying the referral. Even less does the principle of party disposition govern the obligation of the EBA to answer referred questions. In its order, the EBA answered the question as required by the case pending in T 1807/15 and, at the same time,

schestowitz

justified what was done in referral proceedings, i.e. holding oral proceedings by VICO. Otherwise, at least one of the external members of the EBA would presumably have been prevented from taking part.

schestowitz

Nevertheless, the fundamental question will continue to exist after the pandemic and it may be expected that the reasons to be given for the order in G 1/21 will assist the Boards and the users in this respect. According to EBA case law, the Boards are not only bound under Article 21 RPBA to the order of an EBA decision but also to its essential reasoning. There may be good reasons why the EBA did not issue its reasoned decision within a few days.

schestowitz

It is to be hoped that the Board finds a well-balanced solution which does not leave it to the EPO to decide what is good for the parties, as the President of the EPO seems to wish.

schestowitz

Patent robot

schestowitz

JULY 19, 2021 AT 9:26 AM

schestowitz

If compulsory VICOs are compatible with the EPC during the pandemic, then they must also be compatible with the EPC after the pandemic, since the EPC does not distinguish the two situations, does it?

schestowitz

Pedro

schestowitz

JULY 19, 2021 AT 7:01 PM

schestowitz

No, that is certainly not true. Desperate times may require desperate measures. Think of it as an exception to a rule.

schestowitz

Patent robot

schestowitz

JULY 20, 2021 AT 9:50 AM

schestowitz

The EPC contains some exceptions. So, which article of the EPC are you referring to? Which “rule” of the EPC are you also referring to ?

schestowitz

Peter Parker

schestowitz

JULY 19, 2021 AT 12:32 PM

schestowitz

Not sure whether they washed their hands like Pilate or whether they displayed wisdom like Solomn with this ruling. Time will tell.

schestowitz

Concerned observer

schestowitz

JULY 19, 2021 AT 6:03 PM

schestowitz

Based upon the letter from the opponent today, the wording of the EBA’s order may be even less helpful than it appeared at first sight.

schestowitz

In essence the opponent interprets the phrase “a period of general emergency impairing the parties’ possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises” as meaning that it is only lawful to conduct “without consent” VICO oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal when (1) there is a period of “general emergency” AND (2) the ability of the parties to attend in-person proceedings is actually impaired. Whilst it is

schestowitz

certain that the EPO President will not agree with this interpretation, who (in the absence of the EBA’s detailed reasoning) can say that it is wrong?

schestowitz

There are many, many other problems with the wording of the EBA’s order. My personal favourite is that it appears to explicitly permit “without consent” VICO oral proceedings only when THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS are conducted during “a period of general emergency impairing the parties’ possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises”. Thus, when issuing a Summons to oral proceedings, it appears that the EPO Boards of

schestowitz

Appeal will need to know in advance whether the date set for the proceedings will still fall within a “period of general emergency …”. Crystal balls to the ready, it seems!

schestowitz

Pedro

schestowitz

JULY 19, 2021 AT 7:03 PM

schestowitz

… with a mind willing to understand …

schestowitz

Concerned observer

schestowitz

JULY 20, 2021 AT 9:53 AM

schestowitz

Even a mind willing to understand would struggle to apply the EBA’s order to a wide range of different cases.

schestowitz

For example, how should the beginning and end dates of a “period of general emergency” be determined? And even during such a period, why should what appears to be an exception to a normal rule (of in-person proceedings) be applied to parties who are, to all intents and purposes, completely unaffected by that emergency?

schestowitz

I would imagine that many Munich-based attorneys would be perfectly willing and able to attend in-person hearings in connection with appeals against decisions of Examining Divisions. If the only party confirms that their ability to attend the proceedings is not impaired, I really do not see how a Board of Appeal can impose the use of VICO.

schestowitz

If, on the other hand, you believe that impairment of the ability to travel should not be assessed on a party-by-party basis, then other problems of interpretation arise. For example, which countries are relevant to consider in connection with travel restrictions? Is it only Germany, or is it instead any EPC Contracting State? Or perhaps it is any country from which a party to any proceedings might, in theory, wish to travel from? Also, is the

schestowitz

ability to travel “impaired” only by self-isolation / quarantine rules, or also by insurance / health risk issues?

schestowitz

From this perspective, the EBA’s order is about as clear as mud.

schestowitz

schestowitz

JULY 19, 2021 AT 6:16 PM

schestowitz

…and since the EPC does not stipulate that dogs cannot partipate in oral proceedings, I can take my dog with me to my next hearing. Your logic is unbeatable.

schestowitz

Attentive Obsever

schestowitz

JULY 21, 2021 AT 6:38 AM

schestowitz

The EBA has really taken us for a ride!

schestowitz

It will be interesting to see what reasons this bunch of pseudo lawyers will bring to explain that the order only applies to OP before the Boards.

schestowitz

When reading Art 116 I fail to see that it makes a difference between first instance and boards of appeal.

schestowitz

The area of dynamic, i.e. politically wished interpretation, had made inroads at the EBA.

schestowitz

It is tragic to see the how people meant to protect the EPC have become puppets on the strings of EPO’s management!

schestowitz

Is it the price the BA have to pay to be allowed to come back to Munich?

schestowitz

The EPO stinks to high heaven be it in first instance or at the boards. Shame on you all!

schestowitz

The founding fathers of the EPC must turn like a gyroscope in their tombs!

schestowitz

The Convention Watchdog

schestowitz

JULY 21, 2021 AT 9:22 AM

schestowitz

This comment sinks to the level so far known only from Techrights. Is it asked too much to wait for the reasons of G 1/21 before insulting the members of the EBA and the Boards in general in this way?

schestowitz

Concerned observer

schestowitz

JULY 21, 2021 AT 6:09 PM

schestowitz

It is, of course, important to await the full reasoning for the order in G 1/21 before reaching a conclusion upon whether the EBA has done a good job in interpreting the relevant provisions of the EPC. However, whilst I would not go so far as to insult its members, I think that, even without knowing the reasoning for the decision, there are a number of important points upon which it is perfectly reasonable to criticise the performance of the EBA.

schestowitz

Firstly, the participation of the President of the Boards of Appeal at the beginning of the proceedings in G 1/21 was an outrage, not only because of his clear personal (ie career) interest in reaching a positive conclusion on the lawfulness of a provision whose creation and passing he masterminded, but also because it totally disrespected the separation of powers principle.

schestowitz

Secondly, the EBA handled the Article 24 EPC objections very poorly. The first interlocutory proceedings should have been held in the presence of the parties and the information upon which the EBA based its decisions should have been shared with the parties in advance of the hearing on the matter. It is frankly unacceptable for a decision following an ex parte hearing to contain new (yet incomplete) information that points to possible new reasons to

schestowitz

suspect partiality. It is even worse for the EBA to conclude that there is “nothing to see here” upon the basis of information that was not made available to the parties (or the public).

schestowitz

Another failing in connection with Article 24 EPC is that the EBA only considered the objections of the opponent, despite being aware of numerous (differently reasoned) objections from amicus briefs. Those other objections should have been addressed. Even if one considers that the objections under Article 24(3) EPC were rendered moot by the exclusions of Josefsson and Beckedorf, the EBA should definitely have addressed the arguments that were raised

schestowitz

under Article 24(1) EPC … not least because it is settled case law that ANY party can raise an objection under that ground.

schestowitz

Then, of course, there was the procedural slip-up that led to the need for a second hearing on the merits. Being given lessons on procedure by a party to the proceedings is not a good look for the EBA.

schestowitz

Finally, there is the wording of the order, which, as I have previously explained, is as clear as mud. For many parties seeking clarity upon whether their particular oral proceedings can take place in person, that order is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. On the other hand, the order’s lack of clarity (as well as its extremely narrow scope) will be a huge gift for the EPO President … as I have no doubt that he will take the approach that,

schestowitz

for VICOs, anything is permissible so long as it has not been explicitly forbidden by the EBA.

schestowitz

It is notable that all of the above-described failings of the EBA could easily be interpreted as being motivated by an inclination not to disrupt the EPO President’s “New Normal” agenda (or to displease either him or the President of the Boards). This could of course be ascribed to coincidence. Alternatively, one could question what the chances are of a truly independent EBA making so many (perceived) errors of judgement that all happen to

schestowitz

favour the EPO President’s agenda.

schestowitz

Against this background, it will (at least for me) take a truly impressive reasoned order from the EBA in order to dispel the bad smell that has clung to G 1/21 from day one.

schestowitz