Good appellate practice means explaining decisions: how the overuse of one-word affirmances harms US patent law

Abstract The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues one-word decisions under Local Rule 36 in roughly one-third of the patent appeals it hears. Although US law allows for one-word decisions, they should be rare because parties, reviewing courts and the public need transparency in decisions; explaining decisions promotes accuracy and quality in decision-making and helps prevent inconsistent legal outcomes. The Federal Circuit issues many more one-word affirmances than other US Courts of Appeals, which disparately affects patent law, and needs to be addressed to avoid increasing unclarity in the law.