Key points
- The Board held the oral proceedings on premises despite the request for vico oral proceeding in this opposition appeal.
- "The Board found that the subject-matter of the proceedings involved complex explanations of the duct's geometry in relation to the visualisation of several virtual planes and intersections, which made in-person proceedings the appropriate format to be used in the present case. This was already explained in item 9 of the Board's communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 and the parties did not further comment on this at the oral proceedings."
- " Notably, in the oral proceedings itself flipchart drawings (see the minutes) using various colours and simultaneous explanations while developing the drawings on several occasions were made by the appellant, which the Board considers merely confirms why in-person oral proceedings was the appropriate format for these proceedings, despite both parties requesting oral proceedings by videoconference. Whilst drawings or sketches supporting or helping to illustrate oral submissions could also be made at oral proceedings held by videoconference in a different way, e.g. by sharing the screen or by using the whiteboard, the Board considered in-person oral proceedings the more appropriate and efficient format in the circumstances of the present case, not least since it expected lengthy discussions on issues for which such visual aids might be referred to often and extensively."
- As a comment, the Board clearly articulates case-specific reasons for holding oral proceedings in person against the wishes of the parties.
EPO
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the decision text.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2024/01/t-327719-video-oral-proceedings.html
