1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |The Wait Is Over: Final DFARS Safeguarding Rule Published Today

The Wait Is Over: Final DFARS Safeguarding Rule Published Today

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.21.16

Almost three years after its first iteration was published, DoD has finalized the DFARS Safeguarding Rule and corresponding DFARS clauses regarding the protection of “covered defense information” provided to or generated by defense contractors. Effective today, the Final Rule by and large reflects the same requirements of its interim versions and FAQs but with a few notable exceptions, including the definition of “covered defense information” now encompasses all forms of “controlled unclassified information” and thus aligns with the National Archive’s recent final rule, external cloud services housing covered defense information must comply with certain FedRAMP security requirements, and subcontractors must notify their primes when requesting variances from the security controls of NIST Special Publication 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....

View All Insights