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]: Majority Opinion in Ford, former Justice Newman authored a concurring opinion, which Justice Saylor joined, in which she specifically expressed her agreement "that appellate counsel acted ineffectively by neglecting to raise trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to investigate and present evidence during the penalty phase of Appellant's history of abuse and mental illness." Ford, 809 A.2d at 336 (Newman, J., joined by Saylor, J., concurring). 5 . Although Teague's retroactivity analysis did not gamer five votes, a majority of the High Court soon thereafter reaffirmed the Teague plurality's rule and its two exceptions in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 313, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). 6 . Compare with Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct.
Holding statements: (A) holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty (B) holding that mentally retarded capital murderers are constitutionally ineligible for death penalty (C) holding that juveniles are constitutionally ineligible for death penalty (D) holding that defendant may be subject to death penalty on resentencing (E) holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants
[A]: holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty

[Q]: UC Hastings Mot. at 5-8), and courts in their home forums have addressed related arguments in the past. See, e.g., Brine v. Univ. of Iowa, 90 F.3d 271, 275 (8th Cir.1996) (affirming the district court's holding that the University of Iowa and its Board of Regents were immune, under the Eleventh Amendment, from suit on plaintiffs 1983 claims); Scherer v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 49 Fed.Appx. 658, 658 (8th Cir.2002) (affirming the district court's holding that the University of Missouri and its Curators were immune, under the Eleventh Amendment, from suit on plaintiffs ADA claim) (citing Sherman v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 871 F.Supp. 344, 348 (W.D.Mo.1994)); Gallagher v. Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of the Law, No. C011277PJH, 2001 WL 1006809, at *5 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 16, 2001) (<HOLDING>). Because the relevant circuit and district
Holding statements: (A) holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under 1983 (B) holding that uc hastings was immune under the eleventh amendment from suit on plaintiffs 1983 claims and granting motion to dismiss (C) holding that the department of corrections was entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from suit under section 1981 (D) holding college school district immune from suit in federal court under eleventh amendment (E) recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment
[A]:
holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under 1983