News Focus
News Focus
icon url

ziploc_1

02/12/22 6:33 AM

#370205 RE: alm2 #370199

Alm...In reading the histories of these three justices, who presided in the EPADI case,I noted that they were each very smart, erudite and fair...I would have preferred that that the questions, which you mentioned in your post, had been discussed during the oral arguments...Nevertheless, these topics were covered in the briefs and I am sure that the judges are aware of them and will discuss them in their deliberations.

Some tough questions were asked, but Marjac answered them well...
I am now more optimistic than I was immediately after the hearing.
icon url

alwayswatching1

02/12/22 8:10 AM

#370211 RE: alm2 #370199

Which if I may intervene was a blatant attempt by Dyk to circumvent the real issue at hand. I don’t know if he just dislikes AMRN or has someone in his back pocket guiding his poor judgement. Either way Dyk is an obstacle maybe to big to overcome for anyone but Marjac surely did the absolute best he could all things considered.
icon url

marjac

02/12/22 9:04 AM

#370231 RE: alm2 #370199

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.