Claim Reciting Multiple "Extensible Markup Languages" Is Not Invalid For Lack Of Written Description Even Though Specification Describes Only One

Defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of written description of plaintiff's encryption patent was denied. "[Defendant's] argument rests exclusively on the fact that [the claims] refer . . . to 'another Extensible Markup Language,' but 'nothing in the [patent] application, as filed, disclosed or suggested more than one Extensible Markup Language.' In the context of the [patent], however, [defendant's] argument reduces to mere semantic quibbling. . . . [T]he entire point of Extensible Markup Languages is that their syntax can be extended or modified to suit various purposes and applications."

TecSec, Incorporated v. International Business Machines, et. al., 1-10-cv-00115 (VAED January 12, 2011, Order) (Brinkema, J.)