XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[Snooze]

It seems to be that the mandate of CAFC has been ambiguous and this needs fixing.
I would even posit the idea that some judges at CAFC have deliberately pushed the envelope of "claim construction being a legal issue" that justifies de novo review in 100% of cases... The CAFC ruling in the G case goes so far beyond what a rational observer would expect that it has seemed to me all along that some of the judges are intentionally forcing SCOTUS to address this once and for all...

Are they to examine claim construction de novo in 100% of cases or not?
By taking the extreme position that they believe their mandate requires this and that claim construction is purely and utterly a legal issue and that, by extrapolation, absolutely no deference to the lower court's findings are appropriate as it pertains to the issue of claim construction, CAFC is forcing legitimate cases to be adjudicated at SCOTUS and, in turn, forcing SCOTUS to clarify the CAFC's mandate and process.

To my mind, these CAFC judges want SCOTUS to address this issue and are willing to have their rulings overturned just to highlight the point...

It's possible that Mayer and Wallach chose this case (and others) to really press the issue.

Will SCOTUS now do the heavy lifting??
They have done part of it with TEVA already...
Is that sufficient??
Is there more for them to say on these issues???
I think so...