Just in Time for Spring: Revision 2 to NIST SP 800-171 Comes into Full Bloom
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.12.20
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently released its final version of Revision 2 to the cybersecurity standard NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171. While the security controls remain unchanged, Revision 2 now incorporates implementation guidance into each control. Importantly though, such guidance remains non-binding and is not intended to extend the scope of the controls’ requirements.
For future solicitations, Revision 2 will replace Revision 1 as the applicable standard under DFARS 252.204-7012. It remains to be seen how the finalization of Revision 2 will impact the Department of Defense’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC). Currently, many CMMC practices cite to Revision 1, while “Discussion” sections cite to the draft version of Revision 2.
Lastly, although introduced in draft form at the same time as Revision 2, the separate standard NIST SP 800-171B – describing enhanced security controls intended to mitigate the risks of Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) – remains unfinalized.
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
