Several times the counsel was kind of interrupted to move the questions on to the next justice in line, and the rate at which they moved through them seemed extremely fast compared to what I expected.
This is the highest court in the country, adding what feel like artificial time restrictions into the ability for the counsel to properly explain their reasoning and points seems like a really bad idea. (obviously within reason, you shouldn't have a lawyer that can talk for 20 hours to delay a case, but it seemed like during the "United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V." part they were moving from justice to justice in what felt like under a minute or 2, cutting the counsel off every time.)
Again, I'm far from an expert here, so can any actual experts (or people with more knowledge of this world) offer some clarity on if this is "normal", and perhaps why it's like this?
Even before this change, there were very tight time limits on lawyers for oral arguments.
There are also far, far more cases asking to be heard by the Supreme Court than they can actually hear, so they need to keep the time limits short.
Is this the NFL we are talking about or the Supreme Court?
If you listen to the in-person oral arguments, there's a ton of interruption and pre-emption all the time (with the Justices always winning the pre-emption battle against the attorneys), which works fine with the visual cues and 0 latency of being present together. If they tried to imitate that same style over a typical Zoom session it would be a disaster, people talking all over each other, etc.