Frankly, I've never been quite sure whether you actually intend to be disruptive or whether you just really have no understanding of legal issues, but whatever, please stop posting this stuff. I've already explained the situation as far as such can be done at the moment, but, as usual, you feel the need to take things further and add more confusion.
The de novo standard is what is being used at present. Therefore, if the SCt makes no change in the Teva case, we are no worse off. It is the de novo standard that offers the greater chance of overturning a jury verdict, because under that standard, the Federal Circuit need not find clear error in the trial judge's claims contstruction. Conversely, if the SCt in Teva rules that the de novo standard is incorrect, it would probably return things to the manifest error standard.
As I've posted before, there is debate in the legal community as to whether the standard of review really makes any difference as a practical matter, but theoretically, manifest error is better for the winner in the trial court. Please don't confuse the issue any further by making another post on this subject.
