- Can a Board of Appeal reject an appeal without holding oral proceedings where these are timely requested by the appellant, in a case where the appellant maintains the request and intends to attend the oral proceedings, and where the appeal was filed by the applicant and is not an appeal against an earlier decision of a Board of Appeal (e.g. unlike the unusual cases of G 1/97 respectively G2/19)?
"Besondere Bedeutung wird der mündlichen Verhandlung beigemessen (Art. 116). Sie kann in jedem Stadium des Verfahrens durchgeführt werden und findet nicht nur dann statt, wenn das Europäische Patentamt sie für sachdienlich erachtet, sondern anders als nach deutschem Patentrecht auch auf bloßen Antrag eines Beteiligten. "
Anders als in manchen nationalen Patenterteilungsverfahren gibt das EPU den Beteiligten grundsätzlich einen Rechtsanspruch, eine mündliche Verhandlung im Prufungs, Einspruchs- und Beschwerdeverfahren zu verlangen; im Verfahren vor der Eingangsstelle ist dieser Anspruch beschränkt.Aus der Fassung dieses Satzes [=Article 116(1), first sentence] in allen drei Amtssprachen ergibt sich klar, daß das EPA, falls ein Beteiligter eine mündliche Verhandlung beantragt, nicht zu prüfen hat, ob die Verhandlung sachdienlich ist.
2. Le recours à la procédure orale peut encore être ordonné pendant l'ins à la requête de l'une des parties, c'est-à-dire du demandeur. rocédure, dan ou du breveté, d'un opposant ou d'un intervenant.En principe, la procédure orale est obligatoirement orga- nisée, dès que l'une des parties le demande.A ce principe, deux exceptions sont prévues: (...)
See also Eskil Waage, Principles of Procedure in European Patent Law, 2002, page 95:
This provision is one of the "Common provisions governing procedure" which apply to all the administrative departments and judicial bodies of the EPO. It sets out "an almost unqualified right to require oral proceedings to take place".7 Once a party has filed an appropriate request, a hearing must take place before the competent department. The party does not have to justify his request, and the EPO may not refuse the request even if it considers that the hearing is superfluous. A party has no obligation to present new material - facts, evidence, arguments or amendments at the hearing, and the EPO must not sanction financially a party who has requested a hearing and does nothing more than repeating orally what he has already submitted in writing.9 No considerations of procedural economy, not even a suspicion of an abuse of procedure, may stand in the way of the right of a party to be heard during oral proceedings. 10
7. Singer / Lunzer EPC, Article 113.04, p. 592, and Article 116.01, p. 612: "a legal right"; Schachenmann, in Singer / Stauder EPÜ, Artikel 116, n° 5, p. 634: "ein grundlegendes, absolutes und zwingendes Verfahrensrecht". See also Davis / Cole, EIPR 1999, 609; Schmitz, Mitt. 1993, 165 (at 169); and Guidelines E-III, 2. In the 1962 Preliminary Draft (CEE IV/8221/61, Commentary to Article 75a, p. 7), it is stated that oral proceedings, once requested, become "an essential pre-condition for the decision".
8. See, e.g., T 209/88 "ROBERT BOSCH", 20.12.1989, Reasons 3.3.
9 See Kockläuner, Mitt. 1989, 30 (at 32, n° II); Schachenmann, in Singer / Stauder EPÜ, Artikel 116, n° 68, p. 644; and Schmitz, Mitt. 1993, 165 (at 168, n° 4). See also T 125/89 "SCOTT PAPER", 10.1.1991, [1992] EPOR 41, Reasons 7: "a right even to repeat known arguments or to stress arguments already brought forward".
10 See T 556/95 "CHAUM", 8.8.1996, OJ EPO 1997, 205, Reasons 4.3; T 598/88 "SCHERING",7.8.1989, Reasons 2; T 194/96 "CONOR", 10.10.1996, Reasons 2; and T 685/98 "GPT", 21.9.1998, OJ EPO 1999, 346, Reasons 6.2; see also Singer / Lunzer EPC, Article 116.02, p. 613; and Case Law, 3rd ed., p. 261.
Of course, G 1/97 and G2/19 identified cases where the holding of oral proceedings was not necessary (note: I use the term cases; G1/97 does not explicitly say that the request at issue in that case was a proper appeal under Article 106 EPC).
In G 2/19, the Enlarged Board held:
"Artikel 116 (1) Satz 1 EPÜ ist vielmehr dahin einschränkend auszulegen, dass die bloße formale Position als faktischer Beteiligter am Beschwerdeverfahren nicht ausreicht, um die Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung verlangen zu können, wenn der Petent [i.e. the party requesting the oral proceedings], wie hier, nicht zur Beschwerdeeinlegung befugt ist, weil er im Rechtssinne nicht am vorangegangenen Verfahren beteiligt war oder wenn er - was hier zugleich vorliegt - einen der Beschwerde nicht zugänglichen Gegenstand verfolgt. Vielmehr kann die angerufene Kammer ein solches Begehren umgehend schriftlich und, wie die Große Beschwerdekammer es in G 1/97 formuliert hat (vgl. Entscheidungsgründe Nr. 6 letzter Absatz), ohne Einhaltung weiterer prozessualer Formalitäten als unzulässig verwerfen."
G1/97 and G2/19, however, concerned exceptional cases where a procedure could hardly be called an appeal, at most because a document titled 'Notice of appeal' had been filed (and a fee paid and a letter with grounds filed); however, in both cases with a purport going well beyond the system of the appeals as set up in part VI of the EPC.
Travaux préparatoires EPC 1973
In the 1970 first preliminary draft for the EPC (established by the Intergovernmental Conference), Art.84, oral proceedings were to be held "on its own initiative or at [the applicant's] request, where it considers this to be expedient; however, the examining division "must give a hearing to the applicant on his request if it proposed to give a decision refusing the application wholly or in part".
In the 1971 second preliminary draft, Article 140, oral proceedings are held upon request (before the Examining Division, only upon request if refusal is envisaged).
Document Br/12 e/69, minutes of Working Party I of 24 to 28 November 1969, p.25, states that the Working Party "thought it was enough to provide that a hearing [in appeal] should take place whenever any party requested it".
Thus, the Working Party modified the proposal in the (older) first preliminary draft of 1965 of the Working Group, which specified that appeal hearings were to be held at the request of a party only when the board found it expedient.
EPC 2000
The legislator kept Article 116 the same as part of the EPC 2000 revision. I'm unaware of any debate about the right to oral proceedings in the context of preparing EPC 2000. This relatively recent consensus could be seen, perhaps, as an indication that there was no subsequent legal agreement or practice changing the interpretation of Article 116 EPC in the sense of Article 31(3) VCLT.
The minutes of the Diplomatic Conference of November 2000 do not seem to contain any discussion of Article 116 (link).
Dynamic interpretaton
Linderfalk, in his extensive treatise on treaty interpretation, proposes on p.182 that what matters in the context of 'dynamic interpretation' is whether the term is to be interpreted as "a generic referring expression with a referent assumed by the parties to be alterable." Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (2007), see also here.
The Boards of Appeal have already refused to appoint oral proceedings despite a corresponding request by the appellant, e.g., in decision J 6/22 of 26 July 2023 (https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/j220006eu1):
ReplyDelete50. All these considerations support the conclusion that a literal interpretation of Article 116(1) EPC conflicts with the legislature's aims (see again G 2/12; G 2/13; G 3/19, Reasons XXII; G 3/98, Reasons 2.5) when oral proceedings serve no purpose and would thus only prolong proceedings to no one's avail. A narrow interpretation of Article 116(1) EPC thus has to make way for a dynamic and evolutive understanding instead, in light of the provision's object and purpose.
51. The very purpose of Article 116(1) EPC, with a view to the procedural principles outlined above, can be seen as providing for the essential right to be heard in oral proceedings only in so far as these serve a legitimate purpose and thus do not run counter to the requirement of legal certainty in due time as a further essential element of a fair trial for all parties.
52. In a case like the current one, legal certainty in due time, just as procedural economy, as a further essential cornerstone of a fair trial, has to prevail.
53. In light of the principles of a fair trial and legal certainty in due time, there is no absolute right to oral proceedings under all circumstances.
57. The boards are, as the judicial body under the EPC, a public service provider with limited resources. They are obliged to carefully and fairly allocate these resources to where they can be used most appropriately, in line with the procedural principles enshrined in the EPC and beyond and their duty to serve parties in an equal and non-discriminatory manner. Any procedural step undertaken in appeal proceedings that is not required by the applicable rules is to the detriment of other parties as their cases are postponed, and this thus runs counter to the boards' duty and function to equally bring justice to all.
A remarkable decision, is probably all I should write here about J6/22 for now.
ReplyDelete