Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 APRIL 2018

Practice Pointer: Why Are Some Federal Circuit Cases Decided Without Oral Argument?

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

On average, each panel of the Federal Circuit decides approximately one case per day solely on the briefs. Cases can be designated for no oral argument if ...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Author LinkedIn connections

On average, each panel of the Federal Circuit decides approximately one case per day solely on the briefs. Cases can be designated for no oral argument if: an appeal is frivolous, the issue or set of issues has been authoritatively decided, or the facts and legal arguments are presented in the briefs and would not significantly be aided by oral argument. If one member of the panel requests it, oral argument will be held.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Tenth Circuit Stays Nationwide Eligibility Injunction For Class Of 2022 In Wisne v. NCAA

On August 21, 2026, the Tenth Circuit granted the NCAA’s stay request in Wisne v. NCAA, temporarily restoring the NCAA’s age-based eligibility rules pending resolution of the appeal. Three weeks earlier, Judge Sweeney of the District of Colorado had issued a nationwide injunction that permitted athletes in the Class of 2022 to pursue a fifth year of eligibility.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Article

Show Your Work: California Federal Court Denies Preliminary Approval Of Data Breach Class Action Settlement

A federal court in California denied preliminary approval of a $2.3 million data breach settlement affecting over 220,000 individuals, finding seven critical deficiencies in the proposed agreement. The decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny courts apply to class action settlements, particularly regarding claims-made distribution processes, inadequate documentation of settlement value, and unexplained disparate treatment among class members.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Video

MR. NUMBER 1 WINS AGAIN!: Concora Credit To Pay $9.375MM To Settle TCPA Wrong Number Class Action As Another Company Bows To Greenwald (Video)

Concora Credit has agreed to pay $9.375 million to settle a TCPA class action lawsuit over wrong number robocalls, with prominent TCPA attorney Mike Greenwald securing another major victory. The settlement includes over $5 million for approximately 147,000 class members, $3 million in attorney fees, and a commitment to spend at least $1 million on TCPA compliance over three years.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Troutman Amin LLP
Troutman Amin LLP
Article

California Federal Court Denies TikTok’s Motion To Dismiss Children’s Privacy Claims Based On Prior Class Action Settlements

A federal court rejected TikTok's attempt to use two prior nationwide class action settlements—totaling over $93 million—to dismiss new privacy claims brought by minors alleging violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The ruling hinged on whether the current plaintiffs were demonstrably members of the earlier settlement classes based solely on the pleadings, raising critical questions about the scope and enforceability of broad settlement releases in successive privacy litiga
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

Florida Federal Court Holds That The TCPA’s Do-Not-Call Provisions Do Not Apply To Cell Phone Users

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that cell phone users cannot sue under the TCPA's do-not-call provisions, determining that the FCC exceeded its authority when it extended protections to wireless subscribers in 2003. The decision challenges decades of regulatory interpretation and could fundamentally reshape telecommunications privacy litigation if adopted by other courts.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

Sterling v. City Of Jackson And The Limits Of Substantive Due Process In Environmental Harm Cases

The Fifth Circuit's en banc decision in Sterling v. City of Jackson tests whether residents exposed to lead-contaminated municipal drinking water can sue under Section 1983 for substantive due process violations. In a 10-5 ruling, the court held that environmental harms caused by government mismanagement belong to tort law and the political process, not constitutional claims, creating a significant circuit split with implications for how environmental compliance failures by public officials are litigated.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

It’s An Arbitration Agreement After All: Disney Compels Arbitration And Dismisses Class Claims In Antitrust Suit

A federal court granted Disney's motion to compel arbitration in an antitrust class action, allowing the company to invoke fuboTV's subscriber terms of service after acquiring a 70% stake in the streaming platform. The ruling demonstrates how corporate mergers can fundamentally alter litigation strategy by enabling non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements containing "future affiliates" provisions.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

The First Major AI Meeting Assistant Lawsuit: Practical Lessons From The Otter.ai Litigation

A consolidated class action lawsuit against Otter.AI reveals how AI products that collect and train on user data face significant legal exposure under privacy statutes, unfair competition laws, and invasion of privacy torts. The case demonstrates that privacy policies alone may not shield companies from liability, particularly when they shift consent obligations to customers or obscure how user data trains AI systems.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ZwillGen
ZwillGen
Article

Updates On Export Controls Impacting AI & Advanced Computing

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security issued guidance on May 31, 2026, clarifying licensing requirements for advanced computing items and AI technologies. The guidance maintains export restrictions for entities in certain countries while providing limited relief for data center operators, though questions remain about future regulatory direction. Companies must now strengthen their compliance programs and supply-chain due diligence as BIS continues to prioritize national security
GlobalInternational Law
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Blaker V. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading Of The Pen Register And Trap And Trace Provisions Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act In California State Court

On May 27, 2026, the Superior Court of California held that subdivision (a) of California Penal Code § 638.51 does not apply to software on commercial websites. Plaintiff Brian Blaker sued Defendant NetScout, Inc., alleging the Defendant had violated § 638.51 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act by implementing a software development kit (SDK) on its website.
United StatesPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Privacy Law Mid-Year Update: Key EU And UK Data Protection Decisions

Recent EU and UK court decisions have reshaped the landscape of data protection compliance, clarifying critical boundaries around consent, data subject rights, cybersecurity obligations, and children's privacy. These rulings demonstrate that organizations must move beyond formal compliance to embed proportionality, accountability, and risk-based decision-making into their data processing activities, even when disclosures are legally required or supported by valid legal bases.
GlobalPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Finding A Lack Of Bona Fide Use, TTAB Affirms Cancellation Of Everwise Credit Union Registration Under The Lanham Act’s Reexamination Procedure

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's precedential decision in In re Everwise Credit Union examines whether a credit union's use of its mark constituted bona fide commercial use or merely token use designed to reserve trademark rights. The case centers on whether Everwise Credit Union had actually used its mark in commerce by the deadline to file its Statement of Use, or whether the mark's appearance on its website was simply a placeholder for a future rebrand that occurred two months later.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: June 2026

A Massachusetts district court grants a joint motion to stay proceedings while the parties conduct venue discovery and brief a motion to dismiss or transfer in a patent infringement case between Advanced Surgical Concepts Limited and Intuitive Surgical, Inc. The order establishes specific parameters for discovery scope and briefing schedule before other case deadlines resume.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Staying True To The Specification: Federal Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction Based On Unsupported Claim Constructions

The Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case involving electrical outlet cover products, finding that the district court made critical errors in its claim construction analysis. The appellate court determined that the lower court improperly imposed unsupported limitations on key patent terms and incorrectly applied a presumption of irreparable harm.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP