DoD Previews New Third-Party Cyber Certification Requirements
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.17.19
The Department of Defense is moving closer to a third-party certification to ensure compliance with its standard cybersecurity requirements – what is being called the “Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification” (CMMC). While still in the early stages of development, the CMMC would likely require all contractors subject to DFARS 252.204-7012 to obtain a certification issued by an independent third party stating that the contractor has sufficiently implemented its required cybersecurity controls. Holding this certification would be a “go/no-go” condition to compete for relevant DoD work. Although NIST SP 800-171 is the default cybersecurity standard currently required under -7012, DoD is also exploring the creation of a new standard that would govern the certification. DoD is projecting that the CMMC will start appearing in solicitations as early as Fall 2020, but much work remains to be done – including potential revisions to -7012 – and will no doubt be informed by extensive industry engagement.
Contacts
Partner, Crowell Global Advisors Senior Director
- Washington, D.C.
- D | +1.202.624.2698
- Washington, D.C. (CGA)
- D | +1 202.624.2500
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
