FY 2019 NDAA – Cyber Focus
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.20.18
The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes a robust set of cybersecurity provisions impacting the Defense Industrial Base, including:
- Encouraging federal agencies to avoid using lowest price technically acceptable source selection criteria in procurements predominately for the acquisition of information technology and cybersecurity services.
- Establishing a pilot program to oversee Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) handled by contractors with foreign ownership, control, or influence.
- Requiring DoD to notify Congress of data breaches involving significant losses of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or other forms of CUI.
- Encouraging DoD and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to assist small businesses in the Defense Industrial Supply Chain by enhancing cyber threat awareness and training, and helping to conduct voluntary cybersecurity self-assessments.
- Requiring DoD to obtain disclosures from vendors regarding foreign government access to products or source codes, before acquiring their cybersecurity or information technology products and services.
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
