The EPO continues its pilot programme for video conference oral proceedings - an attorney perspective

Regular attendees at oral proceedings have now settled into the video conference procedure, and many have acquired new set-ups that are particularly suited to these video conference proceedings. Oral proceedings often involve team work between multiple attorneys, or an attorney and their client, and one early concern we had a Keltie was that collaboration would be affected if we weren’t able to be in the same venue. We also had clients whose IT security meant they simply could not use Zoom to access the oral proceedings from their company devices, and they needed to make use of our facilities instead. We were fortunate to be able to adapt our set-up quickly to allow multiple participants in the same room at Keltie offices, with each having their own video and audio set-up: a great advantage for collaboration when it is needed. Looking back, it took very little time to feel comfortable and familiar with the new set-up and process, and to see some of the benefits it offers. 

The access advantages that come from video conference proceedings are significant, for rights holders and attorneys alike. We have seen several instances where clients are able to attend and participate over video conference where it would have been unfeasible for an in-person proceedings. A stakeholder within the business such as an inventor or IP decision-maker can easily join a whole or part of the proceedings without the need for travel. For some, this increased access has been a particularly useful tool for IP education within the business.

The education opportunities of course extend to trainee and newly-qualified patent attorneys too. An opposition oral proceedings can be a daunting task for those without experience: like any other aspect of a patent attorney's job it is a learned skill. Typically the best way to learn is to build up exposure to oral proceedings over time, firstly by observing an experienced attorney in action, then by taking on specific aspects of argumentation, building up to running an entire proceedings. This takes time and investment from both the attorney and the firm. Access for observation and participation is far easier with a video conference proceedings: observers can join from their office, and since members of the public turn their cameras off and put their microphones on mute, they can even carry on with the working day during the ‘less interesting’ parts of a proceedings (I’m told they exist!), or while proceedings are adjourned. It was rare to see observers for in-person proceedings that did not have a connection to the case: now it is relatively common, and when video conference was first introduced, members of the public could even outnumber the active participants.

A shift to video conference proceedings also has benefits for equality in the patent profession. Not everyone is in a position to travel regularly, particularly those with family obligations, and video conference proceedings can be far more easily accommodated by a wider range of attorneys. A thriving opposition practice with in-person proceedings could cause havoc for an attorney’s family life: EPO proceedings can be scheduled many months, or over a year, in advance and can only be rescheduled for exceptional circumstances, and it wasn’t uncommon for attorneys to find themselves blocked from hoped-for holidays or family commitments by an oral proceedings schedule. It can only be a benefit to the profession if this imbalance becomes a thing of the past.