In recent times Merpel has become increasingly interested in the workings of the European Patent Office (EPO). This interest is not, as some might believe, confined to the political and financial dimensions of its operations, since Merpel has also taken quite a fancy to the EPO's functionality. In this context, she has been reflecting on a small but important integer element of the cut-and-thrust of relations between patent applicants and those who stand between them and their desired object: the EPO Examining Division.
In days of old, when examination of a patent application at the EPO became problematic, the European patent attorney would -- like a medieval knight -- need to mount his trusty steed and travel to the EPO’s citadel in Munich, Berlin or the Hague, for face-to-face combat with the Examining Division. This trial by ordeal was popularly known as oral proceedings. In recent times, however, the EPO has embraced video-conferencing for oral proceedings before the Examining Division, a move that has simplified proceedings greatly while also reducing the reduced overall costs for the applicant.
This is no bad thing. The choice of video-conferencing for a particular application is something that lies at the discretion of the EPO. Initially it was difficult to arrange, often because of non-availability of video-conferencing facilities at the EPO (though additional facilities are now available and are routinely used for oral proceedings). The experience of some users has been that the Examining Division refused video conferencing for reasons along the lines of "The complexity of the case is such that the presence of the representative in person is required", and this was done with sufficient frequency for them to cease recommending them (it being a huge waste of time to explain to the client the concept of video conferencing, its pros and cons, get them to agree, make the request, and then for that request to be refused (with last-minute travel arrangements then having to be made).
Be that as it may, the facility of video-conferencing exists and it has to be acknowledged that this has improved the EPO's green credentials by reducing the number of flights and other journeys by attorneys to the EPO from locations across Europe, much to the consternation of that dedicated band of air-mile collectors
[the obvious solution is to come up with some sort of incentive scheme which gives patent attorneys points, redeemable for rewards, for video-conferencing from far-away locations -- a useful business method if ever there was one ...].
For the attorney, however, there is always the nagging doubt as to whether a face-to-face hearing is likely to produce a better result than a video-conference for the applicant. It is generally assumed that the EPO will treat applicants fairly, irrespective of whether the hearing is held in person or by video-conference, which anecdotally seems to be true. It has however come to Merpel's attention that there are rumours that an examiner has indicated a prejudice against video-conferences on the basis that a request for a video-conference indicates that the applicant does not consider the application to be important and does not therefore warrant the cost of a trip to the EPO -- with the result that video-conference oral proceedings are not nearly as successful for the applicant as one might imagine.
Merpel recognises that, in the absence of data, rumour and anecdote govern our perceptions. This being so, she expects to hear from readers from whose experiences both patent attorneys and the EPO Examining Division can learn.
