Beating Others to the Punch, DHS Proposes CUI Changes to Acquisition Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.07.17
On the last full day of the Obama Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed rule that would make several amendments to the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) regarding Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Despite recent developments, the proposed rule is open for comment until March 20, 2017, and seeks to impose several obligations, including: (1) contractors handling CUI under a contract must be in compliance with a bevy of DHS policies and procedures at the time of contract award; (2) contractors operating federal information systems must meet numerous information security obligations prior to handling CUI on those systems; (3) contractors must report known or suspected incidents affecting CUI within one to eight hours, depending on the type of CUI at issue; and (4) contractors must adhere to specific breach notification and credit monitoring requirements in response to incidents affecting personally identifiable information (PII), a subset of CUI.
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
