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

This article examines the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s frequent use of one-word affirmances under its Local Rule 36, which occur in about one-third of its patent appeals, a rate significantly higher than other US circuit courts. While US law permits judgments without opinions, the article argues that such brevity undermines transparency, accuracy, consistency, and accountability in judicial decision-making, especially in complex patent cases that rely heavily on clear legal reasoning. Other circuit courts and former appellate judges, including current US Supreme Court Justices, rarely issue one-word affirmances, typically providing at least brief explanations to clarify their rulings. The article concludes that the Federal Circuit’s overuse of one-word affirmances hampers the development of patent law jurisprudence and calls for the court to adopt more explanatory practices aligned with broader appellate standards.