In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: for these terms in the specifications or prosecution histories of the ’403-S or ’838 patents. Furthermore, the fact that the inventors removed the term “comprising” from Claim 1 of the ’403-S patent does not change the plain meaning of the term “composition,” which remains in the final version of the claim. Moreover, if the court were to adopt the construction of the ’403-S claims put forth by Glaxo, Claim 1 would contradict Claim 1 of the ’838 patent, which retains the term “comprising” and claims the process for producing the compositions described in ’403-S patent. Such a construction would be inconsistent. In light of these findings, the court concludes that the terms “comprising” and “composition” must be construed according to their plain meanings. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (<HOLDING>). As a result, the phrases “immunoglobulin 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that words in claims are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning unless the patentee clearly sets forth a different in the specification or file history (B) holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning (C) holding that statutory words must be given their ordinary contemporary meaning (D) recognizing we must give insurance policy language its ordinary and generally accepted meaning unless the policy shows that the words used are intended to impart a technical or different meaning (E) holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning
[A]: holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning


[Q]: the defendants conceded that, as a general rule, homogenous precinct analysis may be more reliable than ecological regression, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in accepting Mag-giotto's numbers and treating the election as arguably split-preference. 5 . The defendants also argue that, even if there is a statutory violation, Section 2 should not be enforced because it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, principles of federalism, and' the "congruence and proportionality” test established by City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). We need not address this argument in light of our holding that Section 2 has not been violated. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record (B) holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record (C) holding that a successor judge may consider a motion for new trial in a case tried to the court where she is not required to weigh conflicting evidence or pass upon the credibility of witnesses but can resolve such issues  upon evidence which is not materially in conflict (D) holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court (E) recognizing that courts should not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of
[A]: holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record


[Q]: Assa’ad-Faltas’s claim regarding the University’s refusal to give her a certificate of completion for the residency program was previously challenged by Assa’ad-Faltas without success. See Assa’ad-Faltas v. Univ. of S.C., No. 96-2159(L), 1998 WL 792209 (4th Cir. Nov.16, 1998) (unpublished), cert, denied, 528 U.S. 922, 120 S.Ct. 285, 145 L.Ed.2d 239 (1999). Thus, this claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Meekins v. United Transp. Union, 946 F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir.1991). This is so even though the pri- or action was dismissed with prejudice based on Assa’ad-Faltas’s failure to comply with discovery and her abusive demeanor during a deposition, rather than on the merits of her claims. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the claim is barred by the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata (B) holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes (C) holding in res judicata context that  final judgment on the merits is synonymous with dismissal with prejudice  (D) holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes (E) holding that the parties stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment
[A]:
holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata