Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
entity from Masco because after the trial, La Gard merged with Masco and is now a division of Masco. Hence, we hold that standing was not, and is not, lacking on the part of either La Gard or Masco in this appeal. We, therefore, have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (1994), and Mas-Hamilton’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied. II. Infringement A patent infringement analysis involves two steps. First, the court determines the scope and meaning of the asserted claims. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372-74, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). Claim construction is a question of law, reviewed non-deferentially on appeal. See Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1174 (Fed.Cir.1998) (in banc) . Second, the properly construed claims are
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding we review claim construction de novo on appeal
B. holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo
C. holding that we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo
D. holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo
E. holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.