s of Appellate Procedure, Rules 28(c), 28.1(c)(3), (4).40 UPC Agreement, Articles 74(1), (2). A party must lodge an Application for suspensive effect that sets forth “the reasons why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect,” and “the facts, evidence and arguments relied on.” UPC Rules of Procedure, Rules 223(1), (2)(a), (b). The Court of Appeal must decide the Application “without delay.” UPC Agreement, Article 74(1); UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 223(3).41 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rules 8(a), 18(a); Federal Circuit Rules, Rules 8, 18.42 UPC Agreement, Article 59.43 UPC Agreement, Article 60.44 UPC Agreement, Article 61.45 UPC Agreement, Article 62.46 UPC Agreement, Article 74(3).47Id.48 UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 239(1). Several rules that govern the interim procedure in the Court of First Instance apply mutatis mutandis to the interim procedure in the Court of Appeal. UPC Rules of Procedure, Rules 101-110, 239(1).49 UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 239(2).50 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 34; Federal Circuit Rules, Rule 34.51 UPC Agreement, Articles 73(3), 76; UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 222(1).52 UPC Agreement, Article 73(4).53 UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 222(2)(a)-(c).54 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rules 10(a), 16(a), 30(a); Federal Circuit Rules, Rule 30(a); 35 U.S.C. § 144.55 UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 239(2).56 UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 240. The oral hearing in an appeal of a costs decision is heard by the standing judge. UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 241.57 UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 240 (“Subject always to Rule 222, Rules 111, 112, 115, 116 and 117 shall apply mutatis mutandis.”).58 UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 112.59 Federal Circuit Rules, Rule 34, Practice Notes.60 UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 242(1). The Court of Appeal’s decision shall also include “an order for costs both in respect of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.” Id.61 UPC Agreement, Article 75(1).62 UPC Rules of Procedure, Rule 242(2)(a).63 UPC Agreement, Article 77(1);

The pure numbers might suggest that to be the case. However, the numerous factors in play when a randomly assigned panel of three judges (seeI.O.P.-34.1) reviews a case and (a) decides whether or not to have argument (FRAP 34(a)(2)) and then (b) decides whether to publish the opinion in accordance with Local Rule 36(a), almost certainly prevent such conclusions from being drawn with any degree of confidence.Published opinions after submission on the briefs appear to be getting rarer.The vast majority of the opinions published after submission on the briefs were submitted to their panels on June 1, 2020 or before. Only seven (7) of the 47 were submitted after June 1.

In issuing its modification order yesterday, the Court identified its national jurisdiction, the varying approaches and timeframes for communities reopening and the impact on travel due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Chief Judge Prost also clarified that all case scheduling will continue in accordance with existing procedures and that the Court may also choose to dispense with oral arguments where they are determined to be unnecessary pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2)(C). Even though the timing as to when in-person arguments will resume at the Court remains unknown, yesterday’s order in a way provides greater predictability to counsel appearing before the court that in the near term their argument, if any, will be telephonic.

The Clerk’s Office will forward teleconference instructions to the requester. Parties to all appeals are reminded that at the discretion of the panel any appeal that meets the standard set out in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) may be taken on submission.Access to the Courthouse – Individuals who do not have business with the Court will not be admitted until further order of the Court. Individuals who seek access to the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse to transact business with the Court must, in the judgment of the courthouse security officers, meet the health standards specified at the entrance to the courthouse.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).1We may affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims on any ground supported by the record.