Forget The Showers. April Brings Flurry of New Cyber Guidance.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.01.18
April has marked a busy month for those following the DoD’s approach to contractor cybersecurity. Earlier in the month, the DoD published a much-anticipated revision to their Frequently Asked Questions regarding DFARS 252.204-7012 and other cybersecurity requirements, reflecting feedback on various questions posed by industry over the past year and including new information regarding:
- COTS and commercial items
- Scope of covered defense information
- Conflicts with foreign laws
- Subcontractor flowdowns
- System security plans (SSPs) and plans of action & milestones (POAMs)
- Requirements for FIPS-validation, multifactor authentication, and marking
- Cybersecurity requirements beyond NIST SP 800-171
- Cloud service providers
- Examples of cyber incidents
- Guidance for small businesses
- DCMA oversight
Then just weeks later, the DoD issued proposed guidance for evaluating contractor cybersecurity, including implementation of NIST SP 800-171. Importantly, contractors may comment on the draft guidance through May 31 – and would be well-served to familiarize themselves with the new FAQs before doing so.
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
