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.)