Professional representatives must request permission for oral submissions to be made by an accompanying person, stating that person's name and qualifications and specifying the subject-matter of the proposed oral submissions.

In T 1668/14 the board considered that G 4/95 did not deal explicitly with the question of whether an accompanying person may ever be allowed to speak on matters other than those previously notified. However, the fact that the EPO has a discretion to decide that a proposed accompanying person may not be heard at all suggests that such discretion extends also to the nature of the submissions to be permitted. The board therefore judged, in the case in hand, that it fell within the discretion of the EPO to decide whether an accompanying person might be allowed to speak on matters other than those previously notified, and that this discretion was to be exercised taking into account the facts of the particular case and the principles set out in G 4/95. Permission should only be granted where it is clear that it would not unexpectedly disadvantage the opposing party.

Concerning the admissibility of oral presentations by three technical experts, the board in T 2135/08 concluded that none of the three criteria i), ii) and iii) of G 4/95 were met, among other reasons since the requesting party had failed to state -even at the oral proceedings- the qualifications of these three persons and to specify the subject-matter of their proposed oral submissions.

The board in T 302/02, applying G 4/95, did not allow the expert to make submissions. If an expert were allowed to make submissions on subject-matter not specified in some detail beforehand, the other party or parties would be placed at a disadvantage since they could not prepare themselves properly, and this would be against the spirit and purpose of decision G 4/95 and should only be permitted if none of the parties to the proceedings objects.

In T 2552/11, the board did not permit oral submissions from Mr J. The statement by the appellant (opponent) that Mr. J would "refer to the prior art documents cited by the opponent" was very general, and not sufficient to enable the respondent (patent proprietor) to prepare itself properly.

In T 919/07, where the requests in writing concerning oral submissions by accompanying persons did not indicate what such submissions could contribute to the evidence on the file, the board exercised its discretion by deciding that the accompanying persons should be heard in the event that the board wished to ask them questions.