In T 1535/14 the board held that the reasons put forward, namely the existence of ongoing merger proceedings between both parties, did not prevent the parties attending the oral proceedings, but rather concerned their economic interests. Since both parties were appellants it appeared likely that oral proceedings would have to be held even in the event of the merger taking place. Postponement would be against procedural efficiency.

In T 392/97 the board ruled that the subsequent appointment of oral proceedings by a national patent court to take place on the same date as the previously appointed oral proceedings before the board was not in itself a sufficient reason for adjournment.

Point 2.3 of the 2008 Notice lists "business trips which have been firmly booked before the notification of the summons to oral proceedings" as a serious reason for changing the date of oral proceedings.