Video oral proceedings and online communications

Readers of this weblog will likely be already aware that in-person oral proceedings with Examining Divisions have been abolished with immediate effect (Notice; Decision; news item of epi).

In-person oral proceedings will from now on only be held for exceptional cases such as the hearing of witnesses and the inspection of models. In-person oral proceedings are hence not suspended for a limited period because of the corona virus, but abolished completely for Examining Divisions.

According to Mr. Campinos, the measure contributes to “a more efficient, modern and sustainable European patent system” (letter of the President). Video interviews (i.e. with the primary Examiner) are also available.
The "epi" protested (letter) but as of yet to no avail, as regards examining divisions (the President's proposal to allow for video oral proceedings in opposition division was apparently not pushed through).

Update 04.04.2020: I would like to clarify that my view is that it is highly doubtful whether video oral proceedings are sufficient under Article 116 EPC. In addition to my comments below about the refund for withdrawing requests for oral proceedings in appeal, I consider the refund to be effectively a fee for the exercise of the right to oral proceedings under Article 116, which is in my view is an unallowable curtailment of Article 116. I also consider both legal measures to be steps on a slippery slope to hollowing out Article 116.

Clearly, established practices become flexible these times. Let's brainstorm about other changes that could finally be made now so to move to paperless and fully digital proceedings before the EPO:

• Issuing paper patent certificates only on request. Many offices already do this. The cost-saving could be shared with users by a freeze of the grant fee.
• Acknowledgement receipts should no longer assume the use of fax by applicants. The easiest thing would be a QR code on the letter that can be scanned by the recipient to acknowledge receipt (apparently, "a pilot on using email for notifications related to pending oral proceedings" is considered now, link).
• Let's also delete 'fax'  in Rule 41(2)(c) urgently where the Rule still says: “It is recommended that the fax and telephone numbers be indicated”.
• Online signing with an app. More specifically, it would be very desirable for the EPO to participate in the EU system of recognition of online signatures under the eIDAS regulation (Regulation (EU) 910/2014). National public bodies of EU Member States are required to recognize the national electronic signatures of citizens issued in other EU states under this system (I think this applies in fact to the Patent Offices of EU Member States as well). This allows businesses and citizens (and professionals) to use their national electronic signature throughout the EU in dealing with public bodies. Depending on the electronic signature systems offered in the various Member States, this can be e.g. a secure online app on mobile phones and other devices, thereby finally allowing for signing documents 'on the go'. The eIDAS system goes up to the highest security level 4. Hundreds of public bodies throughout the EU offer eIDAS login (or will offer so once the Regulation is actually implemented). 
• In fact, the EPO itself already  uses (and mandatorily prescribes) eIDAS signatures (https://www.epo.org/about-us/tenders/signatures.html
• Issuing Communications as character-coded text instead of 'dead image PDF'. Hence, Communications wherein you can copy/paste the text without having to run OCR first. If applicants are supposed to file their applications and amended claims in XML in the near future, perhaps the Office can show the example by moving first (I don't dare to ask for Communications in structured text or even in XML, that seems a distant dream). 

On the related topic of oral proceedings, it seems to me that the partial refund of the appeal fee in case of withdrawal of a request for oral proceedings can be further simplified. In particular, if an appellant expressly waives his right to oral proceedings with the Notice of appeal, a corresponding reduction of the appeal fee can be granted. This avoids that applicants file merely formal requests for oral proceedings only in order to benefit from the refund by withdrawing them in due time.
I think such a reduction can be especially advantageous if the Boards would make clear that they will not deal with such appeals out of turn (unless acceleration is requested). The reason is that many appeals appear to be filed only in order to have something pending for a few more years and the risk of a swift refusal of the appeal clearly outweighs any cost saving of the appeal fee. Hence, a confirmation that the appeal will not be dismissed 'out of turn' seems important to provide an effective incentive to appellants to not file merely precautionary requests for oral proceedings and in fact to waive the right to summons.

Furthermore, if applicants and representatives no longer have to travel to Munich or The Hague by the use of video oral proceedings, it seems reasonable to schedule in advance a maximum time (e.g. 2 hours) for video oral proceedings.  This allows for the more compact scheduling of video oral proceedings, especially in technical fields where applicants frequently don't show up at oral proceedings. In the exceptional case that during the video conference it turns out that more time is necessary for a fair discussion of the case, additional video oral proceedings can easily be scheduled for a later day. 

Comments are welcome (even slightly political ones)!