T 1233/17 - No costs order

 Key points

•  “the respondent requested the board to award its costs to the appellant [i.e. to order the appellant to pay the costs of the respondent]. It gave the reasons that follow: ... The appellant announced that it would not take part in the oral proceedings only after the EPO organised the required interpretation, and the respondent's representative had conducted a test call in order to prepare the videoconference. By failing to respond to the board's preliminary view and informing of its non-attendance to the oral proceedings at such a late stage, the appellant forced the respondent to perform a considerable amount of unnecessary preparatory work.”
   
• The Board does not award the costs: “Following the principle of party's disposition, it is a party's right to request oral proceedings, and to maintain its request for as long as it suits its case. A party is also free to waive that right at any point of the proceedings.
• “Interpretation is paid by the users' fees, and should be demanded responsibly. The EPC foresees however no consequence if these resources are claimed, but remain unused. The respondent incurred in any case no direct costs in this respect.
• “Lastly, the respondent has not carried out any work or made expenses which went beyond what would have been required if oral proceedings had taken place. This is the key point under Articles 104(1) EPC and 16 RPBA 2020.
• As a comment, an important relevant fact may have been that the oral proceedings scheduled for 05.10.2021 were cancelled on 27.09.2021, so probably the respondent had not yet begun their intensive substantive preparatory work for the oral proceedings

T 1233/17

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171233eu1.html

decision text omited.