On the Cyber Frontier of IoT Security
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.11.18
In the Interagency Report on Status of International Cybersecurity Standardization for the Internet of Things (IoT), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) performed an extensive survey of current cybersecurity standards applicable or potentially applicable to IoT devices. Among the many key findings and discussions, some of the more notable are: (1) NIST elected not to define IoT due to the many varying definitions already in the field (see Annex A); (2) NIST used several functional IoT applications (connected vehicles, consumer devices, health/medical devices, smart buildings and smart manufacturing) to assess current cyber standards and gaps; (3) NIST recognized that no one-size-fits-all standards exist, as specific sectors will have differing risk scenarios and security objectives, thus requiring cyber standards to be tailored; and (4) IoT security should be built around eleven core areas of cybersecurity standardization. Also, NIST is looking for your comments on draft NISTIR 8200 by April 18. To learn more, join us at the IoT National Institute on May 9-10 in Washington, D.C.
Contacts
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
