1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |An Indefinite Article "A" Or "An" Means "One Or More"

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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights