In T 1208/06 the inventor was not identical to the patent proprietor, so T 621/98 did not apply. In the circumstances, and applying the criteria of G 4/95, the board held the opposition division to have acted correctly by categorising the inventor as an "accompanying person" and not as a party to the proceedings within the meaning of Art. 99(3) EPC and by rejecting the proprietor's request.

The board in T 1150/12 agreed to hear the inventor as an accompanying person, if necessary to supplement the professional representative's submissions. It was anyway bound to treat an inventor's submissions or comments just as impartially as it would the naturally one-sided submissions made by the parties' representatives.