An Indefinite Article "A" Or "An" Means "One Or More"
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.17.08
In Baldwin Graphic Systems v. Siebert (No. 07-1262, January 15, 2008), a Federal Circuit panel reaffirms that an indefinite article “a” or “an” carries the meaning of “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” At issue is a district court’s claim construction that the term “a pre-soaked fabric roll” means “a single pre-soaked fabric roll.” In reversing the district court, the Federal Circuit concludes “[t]hat ‘a’ or ‘an’ can mean ‘one or more’ is best described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention.” The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited; a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ”a” or “an” to “one”.
The panel also notes that “[a]n exception to the general rule that ‘a’ or ‘an’ means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.” The subsequent use of the definite articles “the” or “said” in a claim to refer back to the same claim term is not deemed to change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
