June 19, 2020 - Oral Argument Recap

June Oral Argument Recap

We are two weeks out from arguments in the Court’s June sitting. Here is the after-action report:

Total cases: 35 arguments (and 20 counseled cases submitted on the briefs)

Oldest case: Peerless Industries, Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC, No. 18-2021 (docketed May 30, 2018; 733 days from docketing to argument)

Quickest case: Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Alkem Laboratories Limited, No. 20-1545 (docketed Mar. 9, 2020; 91 days from docketing to argument)

PTAB cases: 7 arguments (and 7 cases submitted on the briefs)

District court cases: 17 arguments (and 7 cases submitted on the briefs)

Rule 36 affirmances: 10 (and 1 in a case submitted on the briefs)

Number of argument days by judge:

  • Prost: 4
  • Newman: 4
  • Mayer: 1
  • Plager: 0
  • Lourie: 3
  • Clevenger: 1
  • Schall: 2
  • Bryson: 1
  • Linn: 0
  • Dyk: 4
  • Moore: 2
  • O’Malley: 3
  • Reyna: 3
  • Wallach: 2
  • Taranto: 3
  • Chen: 3
  • Hughes: 4
  • Stoll: 2

Perhaps the most notable event during the Court’s June sitting was the late-Thursday-night cancellation of Friday arguments. The courthouse was closed Friday to permit officials to prepare for protests expected that weekend in Lafayette Square, a park adjacent to both the Federal Circuit and the White House. The Friday arguments were rescheduled for the following Wednesday. (Note: One of our editors, Seth Lloyd, was a recipient of the 10 PM email the night before oral argument saying argument was being rescheduled, which he said ended up being “no big deal” for his preparation.)

The June sitting statistics also demonstrate the Court’s increased use of Rule 36 affirmances as its telephonic arguments continue. In the Court’s March sitting—its first round of telephonic arguments—it issued only five Rule 36 affirmances in argued cases. By contrast, the Court’s June sitting has resulted in ten Rule 36 affirmances after argument so far, double the March figure. Of those ten cases, four were from district courts, five came from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and only one was a non-patent case.

Samuel B. Goldstein co-authored this article as an associate in our Appellate + Supreme Court practice before departing the firm for a judicial clerkship.