Dear Legal Writer: Today’s letter is about “is comprised by.”

“Is comprised by” is always wrong.

Here’s why. ⤵️

“To comprise” = “to contain,” “to consist of,” “to be composed of.”

✅ All these sentences are correct:

-The whole contains its parts.

-The whole consists of its parts.

-The whole is composed of its parts.

👉 The whole comprises its parts.

📍 There is no such thing as “is comprised by.”

***
✅ Correct Examples:

-The brief comprises four main arguments.

-The committee comprises three subcommittees.

-The prior sentence comprised 5 words.

-The statute comprises 4 sections.

👉 Plaintiffs’ argument comprises two flawed theories.

📍 There is no such thing as “is comprised by.”

***

I have yet to discover a clever memory device, but the best way to learn how to use a word is to start using it correctly and regularly.

For a while, you’ll likely have to double check the meaning each time. But eventually, it will become second nature. (That is how I learned it!)

Fondly,
💌 Amanda

P.S. I am not a patent lawyer, but my understanding is that in that context, a key difference exists between “to comprise” and “to consist of.”

—“To comprise” is “open.” It connotes non-comprehensiveness, so if an invention comprises elements A and B, the invention may also include other elements.

—“To consist of,” by contrast, is “closed” and is comprehensive, so if an invention consists of A and B, the invention may not also contain other elements.

#lawstudents
#lawyers
#legalwriting
#writing