Blank Rome Appellate Insights – Winning on Appeal: March 2026

Why It Matters

These decisions reshape procedural safeguards and substantive obligations, directly influencing corporate litigation strategy, compliance programs, and contract design across multiple industries.

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court poised to reshape APA vacatur standards
• Pennsylvania Supreme Court limits immediate appeals of arbitration orders
• Third Circuit broadens employer restrictions on criminal history use
• Federal Circuit's Sony ruling underscores expert report quality
• Fifth Circuit affirms oral consent satisfies TCPA requirements

Pulse Analysis

The appellate arena is experiencing a wave of decisions that recalibrate the balance between regulatory oversight and business flexibility. The Supreme Court’s upcoming review of the Administrative Procedure Act’s universal vacatur doctrine could tighten the standards for challenging agency rules, compelling firms to bolster their procedural defenses. Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling in Chilutti v. Uber reinforces arbitration’s efficiency by preventing premature appeals, yet it preserves heightened scrutiny of online arbitration clauses, urging companies to revisit digital contract language.

Parallel developments in the Fifth and Third Circuits underscore the growing importance of nuanced compliance. The Fifth Circuit’s affirmation that oral consent fulfills the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s prior‑express‑consent requirement simplifies outreach strategies but also raises questions about evidentiary standards for consent. In Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit’s expansion of the Criminal History Record Information Act to include self‑disclosed convictions tightens hiring practices, prompting employers to refine background‑screening protocols and mitigate potential liability. Both rulings illustrate courts’ willingness to adapt longstanding doctrines to modern business contexts.

Finally, the Federal Circuit’s $500 million Sony patent judgment highlights the critical role of expert testimony in high‑stakes intellectual‑property disputes. The decision’s focus on Daubert compliance and structural equivalence analysis serves as a cautionary tale for litigants relying on technical experts. Collectively, these appellate insights signal a trend toward stricter procedural scrutiny and heightened evidentiary demands, urging corporate legal teams to adopt proactive, data‑driven strategies to navigate an increasingly complex legal landscape.