1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |NIST Offers a Two-for-One Special on Cybersecurity Updates

NIST Offers a Two-for-One Special on Cybersecurity Updates

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.20.18

The government’s leading authority on cybersecurity standards has issued two updates relevant to government contractors working with DoD sensitive data. First, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) updated Special Publication (SP) 800-171, the security standard required by the DFARS Safeguarding Clause 252.204-7012 and also expected to be required under a pending FAR Clause. In addition to nuanced security control revisions, notable changes include the addition of Appendix F, which discusses security requirements derived primarily from the separate standard NIST SP 800-53 in an effort to inform organizations about mechanisms and procedures used to implement required safeguards. Second, NIST finalized its draft of NIST SP 800-171A. This sister document provides guidance in assessing NIST SP 800-171 security controls, including System Security Plans (SSPs) and Plans of Action and Milestones (POAMs). Changes in the finalized guidance include the removal of NIST SP 800-53 guidance in Appendix D and its replacement with three assessment methods – Examine, Interview, and Test – that can be used to assess security requirements under NIST SP 800-171.

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....