SITUATION: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SITUATION: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears a case, a panel of 3 judges is randomly selected from the 12 judges on the court. After a case is filed, the parties submit written briefs stating their argu- ment. If the court decides to hear oral arguments, each party’s lawyer is given between 15 and 30 minutes. The panel of 3 judges then decides the case. Let us model a simplified version of this judicial setting when there is no oral argument.

One side of the case is represented by attorney Elizabeth Hasenpfeffer, while attorney Joseph Fargullio represents the other party. Prior to their ap- pearance, each attorney decides on a legal strategy and writes a brief based on it. For Ms. Hasenpfeffer, let us denote the strategies as A and B; for Mr. Fargullio, they’ll be denoted I and II. The briefs are submitted simultaneously, in the sense that each attorney writes a brief not knowing what the other has writ- ten. This situation is reflected in FIGURE 2.9, in which Ms. Hasenpfeffer moves first and Mr. Fargullio moves second, but with an information set that en- compasses both the node in which Ms. Hasenpfeffer chose A and the one in which she chose B.

After reading the two briefs, the three members of the court then vote either in favor of Ms. Hasenpfeffer’s argument or in favor of Mr. Fargullio’s argu- ment. This vote is cast simultaneously in that each judge writes down a deci- sion on a piece of paper. For brevity, the judges are denoted X, Y, and Z. As depicted, each judge has four information sets, where an information set cor- responds to the pair of legal strategies selected by the attorneys. Judge X moves first and thus doesn’t know how judges Y and Z have voted. Judge Y moves second and thus doesn’t know how Judge Z has voted (since Z is de- scribed as moving after him), but she also doesn’t know how Judge X has voted because of the structure of the information sets. Each of Judge Y’s in- formation sets includes two decision nodes: one for Judge X voting in favor of Ms. Hasenpfeffer and one for Judge X in favor of Mr. Fargullio. Turning to Judge Z, we see that each of her information sets comprises the four nodes that correspond to the four possible ways that Judges X and Y could have

FIGURE 2.9 U.S. Court of Appeals

EH

JF

X

Y

Z

1

0

2

2

2

1

0

2

2

1

H F

1

0

2

1

2

0

1

2

1

1

H F

1

0

1

2

2

0

1

1

2

1

H

Z

F

0

1

1

1

2

0

1

1

1

1

H F

H F

Y

X

H F

H F

JF

EH

I I II I

A B

I I II I

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

2

H F

1

0

1

2

1

0

1

1

2

2

H F

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

2

1

2

H

Z

F

0

1

2

2

1

0

1

2

2

2

H F

H F

Y

X

H F

H F

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

2

H F

1

0

1

2

1

0

1

1

2

2

H F

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

2

1

2

H

Z

F

0

1

2

2

1

0

1

2

2

2

H F

H F

Y

X

H F

H F

1

0

2

2

2

1

0

2

2

1

H F

1

0

2

1

2

0

1

2

1

1

H F

1

0

1

2

2

0

1

1

2

1

H

Z

F

0

1

1

1

2

0

1

1

1

1

H F

H F

Y

X

H F

H F

31

32 CHAPTER 2: BUILDING A MODEL OF A STRATEGIC SITUATION

voted. Although the judges are depicted as moving sequentially, in fact each votes without knowledge of how the other two have voted; in other words, the judges vote simultaneously.

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears a case, a panel of 3 judges is randomly selected from the 12 judges on the court. After a case is filed, the parties submit written briefs stating their argu- ment. If the court decides to hear oral arguments, each party’s lawyer is given between 15 and 30 minutes. The panel of 3 judges then decides the case. Let us model a simplified version of this judicial setting when there is no oral argument.

One side of the case is represented by attorney Elizabeth Hasenpfeffer, while attorney Joseph Fargullio represents the other party. Prior to their ap- pearance, each attorney decides on a legal strategy and writes a brief based on it. For Ms. Hasenpfeffer, let us denote the strategies as A and B; for Mr. Fargullio, they’ll be denoted I and II. The briefs are submitted simultaneously, in the sense that each attorney writes a brief not knowing what the other has writ- ten. This situation is reflected in FIGURE 2.9, in which Ms. Hasenpfeffer moves first and Mr. Fargullio moves second, but with an information set that en- compasses both the node in which Ms. Hasenpfeffer chose A and the one in which she chose B.

After reading the two briefs, the three members of the court then vote either in favor of Ms. Hasenpfeffer’s argument or in favor of Mr. Fargullio’s argu- ment. This vote is cast simultaneously in that each judge writes down a deci- sion on a piece of paper. For brevity, the judges are denoted X, Y, and Z. As depicted, each judge has four information sets, where an information set cor- responds to the pair of legal strategies selected by the attorneys. Judge X moves first and thus doesn’t know how judges Y and Z have voted. Judge Y moves second and thus doesn’t know how Judge Z has voted (since Z is de- scribed as moving after him), but she also doesn’t know how Judge X has voted because of the structure of the information sets. Each of Judge Y’s in- formation sets includes two decision nodes: one for Judge X voting in favor of Ms. Hasenpfeffer and one for Judge X in favor of Mr. Fargullio. Turning to Judge Z, we see that each of her information sets comprises the four nodes that correspond to the four possible ways that Judges X and Y could have

FIGURE 2.9 U.S. Court of Appeals

EH

JF

X

Y

Z

1

0

2

2

2

1

0

2

2

1

H F

1

0

2

1

2

0

1

2

1

1

H F

1

0

1

2

2

0

1

1

2

1

H

Z

F

0

1

1

1

2

0

1

1

1

1

H F

H F

Y

X

H F

H F

JF

EH

I I II I

A B

I I II I

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

2

H F

1

0

1

2

1

0

1

1

2

2

H F

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

2

1

2

H

Z

F

0

1

2

2

1

0

1

2

2

2

H F

H F

Y

X

H F

H F

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

2

H F

1

0

1

2

1

0

1

1

2

2

H F

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

2

1

2

H

Z

F

0

1

2

2

1

0

1

2

2

2

H F

H F

Y

X

H F

H F

1

0

2

2

2

1

0

2

2

1

H F

1

0

2

1

2

0

1

2

1

1

H F

1

0

1

2

2

0

1

1

2

1

H

Z

F

0

1

1

1

2

0

1

1

1

1

H F

H F

Y

X

H F

H F

31

32 CHAPTER 2: BUILDING A MODEL OF A STRATEGIC SITUATION

voted. Although the judges are depicted as moving sequentially, in fact each votes without knowledge of how the other two have voted; in other words, the judges vote simultaneously.SITUATION: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Place Your Order Here!

SITUATION: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
SITUATION: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *