NISPOM, Including Revised Personal Reporting Requirements and Reduced FOCI Mitigation Burden, Codified in Code of Federal Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.22.20
Yesterday, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security, Department of Defense (DoD) published a final rule codifying the National Industrial Security Program Operation Manual (NISPOM) (DoDM 5220.22) into 32 C.F.R. Part 117. For the most part, this action simply inserts the long-applicable NISPOM requirements into the CFR, but DoD has taken this opportunity to formalize two additional changes applicable to cleared contractors. First, the new regulation will incorporate mandatory reporting concerning any cleared personnel's foreign contacts and foreign travel, a requirement initially established by Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 3, “Reporting Requirements for Personnel with Access to Classified Information or Who Hold a Sensitive Position” (12 June 2017) for the purpose of more continuously monitoring activities that can affect an individual's national security eligibility. Second, the final rule will implement Section 842 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which, effective October 1, 2020, removed the requirement that an agency issue a national interest determination (NID) before a foreign-owned entity holding a facility clearance by virtue of a Special Security Agreement may access “proscribed information” (e.g., Top Secret information) where its ultimate and intermediate foreign parents are located in a country within the U.S. national technology and industrial base as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 2500 ( currently Australia, Canada and the U.K.). Comments on the addition of the NISPOM to the CFR may be submitted through February 19, 2021, and the regulation formally becomes effective on February 24, 2021.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
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.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25



