alm,
I will take a different, more optimistic position. Beyond prepping on the substance, I spent a lot of time researching Federal Circuit practice, what is expected at oral argument, and generally the decorum of the forum. You know this because we discussed that outstanding article from the former Federal Circuit law clerk.
We are to presume that the Panel read and understood the Briefs. The purpose of oral argument is to answer the Panel's questions and concerns, but not to reiterate the Briefs.
There are a whole range of outcomes and scenarios which could transpire. One of them is that the Panel absorbed what we said in the Rule 60, and agree that there is a substantive wrong which needs to be corrected, but really have some issues about formulating a Standing ruling to allow them to correct the wrong.
If the substantive Rule 60 issues were clearly absorbed, and the main purpose of the oral argument was to provide the Court with a greater comfort level on the procedural issue, then it naturally flows that the oral argument would focus on those issues. Let's keep the faith until given a concrete adverse decision. I have great optimism that Judge Newman's warmth and wisdom will help us carry the day.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
