By Kevin E. Noonan — In its recent decision in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. the Federal Circuit reminds us that most verities in patent law are not eternal and frequently subject to case-by-case interpretation, in this case the purported verity being that reciting the indefinite article (“a”) in a patent claim is construed to mean “one or more.” Besides showing that “it ain’t necessary so” the case is beneficial for motivating a review of when and under what circumstances “a” means “one or more” and when it means “one,” but it is also illustrates how this…
