Appeals where are youuuuu??? This wait is anoying
There's still a whole set of sur-replies. Next, Vic is responding to MoRon's opening brief on fees and replying to Moron and the other appellees' responses to his own opening brief. After that, MoRon and the other appellees get a final sur-reply on Vic's arguments, and Vic gets a final sur-reply to the fees argument. That isn't a formally scheduled thing and if they don't get it in within a week or two, it could all just get sent to the court.
Anyway after all the paper gets submitted, the clerk creates multiple copies of everything, for all three judges on the panel and their clerks, and forwards it to the judges. That's probably the first they see of the case other than things like the extensions they've already granted. Those giant stacks of paper will include the briefs, responses, replies, sur-replies, the clerk's record, the reporter's record, and any relevant administrivia the court has a practice of generating.
They can do it however they like and every judge has their own practices, but often, the law clerk of one of the judges then reads all the briefings and analyzes the record and writes a bench memo for the judges on the panel to read, both summarizing the case as it stands as well as offering an opinion on how the case should be decided, which is completely non-binding on anyone.
Whenever they feel like it, the judges confer on the various cases they are sharing, and generally have a pretty solid idea what the proper decision is by this point.
At some point after this, if requested or if they want it, the panel schedules oral argument on the case. This is generally less than an hour, and sometimes just a few minutes. The panel shows up for this and the parties get a very brief time to argue their position. Sometimes much of this is taken up by the panel asking questions as it chooses. Sometimes, if they take up all your time asking questions, they'll give you another minute or two to make up for it. Sometimes, they won't. Oral arguments rarely make any difference.
Some time after this, the panel makes its decision, usually unanimously, and assigns one of its members to write the actual opinion, or less often, they all take part in writing it. If there's a dissent, the dissenting judge writes a dissenting opinion. In theory, judges can partially dissent, abstain, concur on different grounds, or far less frequently, do something bizarre like write a dubitante opinion doubting the judgment of the majority. This kind of thing is much more common with state Supreme Courts, though.
The only possible unusual outcome I'm seeing here is a 2-1 with a dissent. This doesn't make much difference if you are the winner or loser, other than to some extent it sends up a bat signal to the Supreme Court that there's possibly a controversial proposition in the case they might be interested in.
The possible outcomes are Vic loses everything, Vic wins everything or, possibly the most likely outcome, wins some and loses some. If he wins some, the opinion will come with a mandate, i.e. an order to the lower court to conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Sometimes an appellate order tells the trial court to do something specific like dismiss a case, but in this case, the order would instead be to continue with the case as if it had not been dismissed.