XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[napkinbie]

Yes, historically it is very difficult to have an en banc review granted, and VRNG chance of receiving en banc review is only 1% based on historial en banc review data. However, each case is unique and has its own merit, and the "historial data" should not be given a strong emphasis here based on the trial court record and the quality of Wallach and Mayer legal reasoning.

Even though the CAFC's split decision is non-precedential, but if one were to look at the quality of the evidences at trial, the way JJ conduct the trial & the quality of his written opinions, and the legal reasonings of Wallach and Mayer who cited "common sense" as the reason to reject the jury's judgement, then IMO, then VRNG chance of receiving en banc review is much greater than 1%. How much greater than 1%, one may aks? I wish I know.

If en banc review is granted, the CAFC's en banc decison can be a precendital decison on the interpretation of 101 and it can also bring clarity on the SCOTUS decision on Alice.

I believe it is reckless to "guarantee" any legal decision or outcome, especially an en banc review being granted by CAFC -- because those have historically been granted around 1% of the time.