1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Forget The Showers. April Brings Flurry of New Cyber Guidance.

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 Importantly, contractors may comment on the draft guidance through May 31 – and would be well-served to familiarize themselves with the new FAQs before doing so.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

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....

View All Insights