1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Inching Towards Uniformity – Proposed Rule Governing Controlled Unclassified Information

Inching Towards Uniformity – Proposed Rule Governing Controlled Unclassified Information

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.14.15

Nearly five years after Executive Order 13556 mandated a government-wide, uniform approach to safeguarding of certain unclassified information—to be known as "controlled unclassified information" (CUI)—the National Archives and Records Administration proposed, on May 8, 2015, a rule that, along with final publication of NIST Special Publication 800-171 (targeted for June 2015) and a standard FAR clause (not yet proposed), would replace the patchwork of markings and controls that have impeded both the government and its contractors in knowing what unclassified information should be protected and how. The proposal, open for comment until July 7, includes such key elements as (1) a publicly available CUI Registry that identifies all categories of CUI to be controlled and which are "CUI Specified," meaning that the controls are specified by statute; (2) standardized markings for CUI, mandatory when disseminated outside the government; and (3) identification of the decontrol authority and establishment of a decontrol process.

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)....

View All Insights