US · rules
Fed. Cir. IOP 8
PANEL CONFERENCE – AUTHORING ASSIGNMENT
1. After a case has been argued, the merits panel will hold at least one conference and
will at that conference exchange tentative views and votes. The judges announce a
“straw” vote, in reverse order of seniority, on the decision in each case and on whether to
employ a precedential opinion, a nonprecedential opinion, or a judgment of affirmance
without opinion under Rule 36.
2. The presiding judge assigns the authoring responsibility for each case at the end of
each day’s sitting or at the end of a session. If the panel is divided, the authoring role is
assigned to a member of the majority. If the presiding judge dissents, assignment will be
made by the senior active member of the majority.
3. Panel members desiring to change authoring assignments shall refer the matter to
the presiding judge for decision. The presiding judge will notify the chief judge of any
change.
4. A merits panel may follow these procedures for cases submitted on the briefs.
Alternatively, the panel may conclude that the case is appropriate for a Rule 36 judgment
or the presiding judge may preassign the authoring responsibility to a panel member
before the panel conference. Under the alternative procedure, a Rule 36 judgment or an
opinion may be voted on before the panel conference and may be ready to be issued
promptly following the panel conference.
History
Date: November 14, 2008
Provenance
- Source
- uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-18
- Edition
- 2026-09-18
- Content hash
be21923d0f49e6fe21caa70209ddd023e8f4eac60ee3d77d66eded3872f8d8b8
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.