On oral proceedings (2025)

Key points

• Due to renewed interest, an overview of the legal literature on Article 116 - the parties' right to oral proceedings.
• The original post was published in August 2024. This is a supplemented (and corrected) version.
• There were some hiccups in saving this updated post. I apologise for any possible inconvenience to the email subscribers. 

Romuald Singer, Das Neue Europäische Patentsystem, 1979, page 54:

"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. "

Singer, EPÜ, first edition, 1989, p.497:

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. 

The same can be found in the current edition: Singer/Stauder/Luginbühl, EPÜ, 9th edition (2023) Art. 116, note 2, note 10: 

"Jedoch ergibt sich aus der Fassung dieses Satzes in allen drei Amtssprachen, dass das EPA, falls ein Beteiligter eine mündliche Verhandlung beantragt, deren Sachdienlichkeit nicht zu prüfen hat. Insbesondere können Erwägungen hinsichtlich zügiger Verfahrensführung, Billigkeit und Verfahrensökonomie nicht durchgreifen." 

On the other hand, the 9th edition discusses in note 6, decision G 2/19 (not G2/99 as the text says): "Konkret verneinte die Große Beschwerdekammer eine Verpflichtung nach Art 116 (1) Satz 1, einem Antrag auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung stattzugeben, wenn das Verfahren einen offensichtlich unzulässigen Behelf (12) zum Gegenstand hat. ... Im Lichte dieser Rechtsprechung besteht keine Verpflichtung nach Art 116 (1) Satz 1 auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung, wenn diese nicht der Wahrung des Anspruchs auf rechtliches Gehör nach Art 113 (1) dient."
[(12)]: Offensichtliche Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsbehelfs liegt nach der Entscheidung G 2/19, ABl 2020, A87, vor, wenn eine zur Rechtsmitteleinlegung nicht befugte Person (ein am Verfahren nicht beteiligter Dritter) einen nach dem EPÜ nicht anerkannten Beschwerdegegenstand verfolgt. Siehe auch G 1/97, ABl 2000, 322, Nr 6 in fine: Offensichtliche Unzulässigkeit bei einem nach dem EPÜ nicht bestehendem Rechtsbehelf." 

• I disagree that no oral proceedings need to be held (even though requested by the party) when the party is given an opportunity to comment in writing. The latter is sufficient under Article 113, but no substitute under Article 116.

Mathely, Le Droit européen des brevets d'invention, 1978, page 330 (corrected quote): 

2. Le recours à la procédure orale peut encore être ordonné à la requête de l'une des parties, c'est-à-dire du demandeur, ou du breveté, d'un opposant ou d'un intervenant.

En principe, la procédure orale est obligatoirement organisée, dès que l'une des parties le demande.

A ce principe, deux exceptions sont prévues: (second oral proceedings, Receiving Section)

 

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

Footnotes:

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.

Addition October 2025:

Schäfers in Benkard EPÜ, 1st edition, 2002, p.1380:

Wird ein Antrag auf mündliche Verhandlung erstmalig vor einem Organ des EPA gestellt, so ist eine Ablehnung so gut wie ausgeschlossen. Nur in ganz seltenen Ausnahmefällen kann ein solcher Antrag abgelehnt oder übergangen werden, ohne einen schwerwiegenden Verfahrensfehler zu begehen. Eine Ablehnung oder Überbürdung der Kosten kommt nach der Praxis der BK nur in Betracht, wenn der Antrag offensichtlich mißbräuchlich oder in der Absicht gestellt ist, das Verfahren zu verschleppen (*), [T 383/87], RsprBK 1998, 295. Ein Antrag kann auch übergangen werden, wenn der Antragstellende offensichtlich das Interesse an dem Verfahren verloren hat, auf Anschreiben des EPA nicht mehr reagiert oder Zustellungen und Ladungen, die an ihn gerichtet sind, als unzustellbar zurückkommen.

I have not identified any legal basis for "oder in der Absicht gestellt ist, das Verfahren zu verschleppen". The phrase "mit der Absicht, das Verfahren zu verschleppen" is used in T 830/91, but in connection with amended claims. I don't know if buying a bit more time is such a bad thing. 

Paterson,  The European Patent System, 2001, p.248

Generally a party to proceedings before any department or instance of the EPO has a right to an oral hearing under Article 116 EPC upon request. This is subject to two exceptions, when the appointment of such an oral hearing following a request from a party remains within the discretion of the competent department of the EPO. (emphasis in the original)

T 383/87: 

Article 116(1) EPC provides, inter alia, that "oral proceedings shall take place ... at the request of any party to the proceedings". In the opinion of the Board, this basic right conferred by the EPC to any party to the proceedings before the EPO, could therefore be refused only under most exceptional circumstances, amounting to an abuse of law, which would make it equitable to award costs against one of the parties. Even supposing the opinion of the Respondent were right concerning the quality of the appeal, this consideration alone could never be a reason for ordering a different apportionment of costs incurred within the meaning of Article 104(1) EPC. This is because Article 116(1) EPC guarantees the right of any party to request oral proceedings, i.e. to argue his case orally before the relevant instance of the EPO.

It may be that a party has the feeling that he can present his case better orally than in writing, even if he has no new arguments. It is then his genuine right to ask for oral proceedings without being inhibited by the fear of having to pay additional costs, unless the request for oral proceedings is a clear abuse of law. As no such abuse can be seen in the present case the request for a different apportionment of costs was to be refused.

T 598/88:

Hierbei [Art. 116(1) EPC] handelt es sich - abgesehen von der hier nicht zutreffenden Ausnahmebestimmung des Artikels 116 (1), Satz 2 - um eine zwingende Vorschrift des EPÜ, dergegenüber Erwägungen hinsichtlich zügiger Verfahrensführung, Billigkeit oder Verfahrensökonomie nicht durchgreifen können. (r.2, emphasis added)

Enlarged Board
Of course, G 1/97 and G2/19 identified procedures before the boards where the holding of oral proceedings was not necessary (note: I use the term 'procedures'; decision 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, oral proceedings are held upon request (before the Examining Division, only upon request if refusal is envisaged) (Article 140). 
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 did not amend Article 116 during the EPC 2000 revision. The minutes of the Diplomatic Conference of November 2000 do not contain any discussion of Article 116 (link). 

In fact, "contrary to Article 116, failed to arrange for the holding of oral proceedings requested by the petitioner" was included in the exhaustive list of grounds for petitions for review (Rule 104). 

This relatively recent consensus could be seen as an indication that there was no subsequent legal agreement or practice in the sense of Article 31(3) VCLT changing the interpretation of Article 116 EPC to include an implicit limitation to appeals where the Board thinks that the oral proceedings will be helpful in its decision-making.

At any rate, such an interpretation would treat the phrse "at the request of any party to the proceedings" in Article 116(1) EPC as covering the same cases as "if it considers this to be expedient", whereas from a systematic and grammatical interpretion, "at the requst of any party" deals with cases where the Board does not find the oral proceedings expedient (as also expressed by the German language version: "entweder auf Antrag eines Beteiligten oder, sofern das Europäische Patentamt dies für sachdienlich erachtet, von Amts wegen statt.")

Dynamic interpretation
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.

Recent expressions of the EPC legislator's view

Rule 21(1) UPR, adopted in 2015: "Oral proceedings shall take place either at the instance of the European Patent Office if it considers this to be expedient or at the request of any party to the proceedings. However, the European Patent Office may reject a request for further oral proceedings where the parties and the subject of the proceedings are the same." (see the epi position paper)

Rule 21(2) UPR contains an exception for proceedings concerning a request for unitary effect; however, this does not mean that oral proceedings are not held in connection with a request for re-establishment of rights for a late-filed request for unitary effect. 

UPCA

Article 52 UPCA (adopted in 2013):  "The oral procedure shall give parties the opportunity to explain properly their arguments. The Court may, with the agreement of the parties, dispense with the oral hearing" (different set of states than the EPC, of course).

EHCR

Article 53 ECHR:
Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a party.

Hence, the EPC can go further than Article 6 ECHR (as interpreted by the ECtHR) - and does so, in Article 116 EPC. Any dynamic interpretation of Article 6 ECHR (in particular, any perceived reduction of the right afforded in the newer case law of the ECHR (compare, in connection with the 'criminal limb' of Article 6 ECHR,  R. Goss, The Disappearing ‘Minimum Rights’ of Article 6 ECHR: the Unfortunate Legacy of Ibrahim and Beuze, 2023 (link, open access), does not force the EPO to diminish the rights of parties under Article 116 EPC.

Furthermore, in the ECtHR decision of Dory v Sweden (12.11.2022):  "The Court notes that no hearing was held at first instance since the applicant did not request the County Administrative Court to hold one. It acknowledges that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, it is normally more expedient that a hearing is held already at first instance rather than only before the appellate court. Depending on the circumstances of the case, it might therefore be acceptable to reject a request for a hearing upon appeal, although no such hearing has been held at first instance." and "the applicant, in the decisions rejecting her requests for oral hearings, was invited by the appellate court to submit final observations in writing" (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60737  )