Just in Time for Spring: Revision 2 to NIST SP 800-171 Comes into Full Bloom
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.12.20
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently released its final version of Revision 2 to the cybersecurity standard NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171. While the security controls remain unchanged, Revision 2 now incorporates implementation guidance into each control. Importantly though, such guidance remains non-binding and is not intended to extend the scope of the controls’ requirements.
For future solicitations, Revision 2 will replace Revision 1 as the applicable standard under DFARS 252.204-7012. It remains to be seen how the finalization of Revision 2 will impact the Department of Defense’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC). Currently, many CMMC practices cite to Revision 1, while “Discussion” sections cite to the draft version of Revision 2.
Lastly, although introduced in draft form at the same time as Revision 2, the separate standard NIST SP 800-171B – describing enhanced security controls intended to mitigate the risks of Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) – remains unfinalized.
Contacts
Senior Counsel
She/Her/Hers
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 05.27.25
U.S. Departments of State and Treasury Issue Immediate Sanctions Relief for Syria
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.23.25
Executive Order Seeks Most-Favored-Nation Drug Pricing and HHS Announces Price Targets
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.22.25
Opportunities for Procurement on the Horizon as UK Concludes Free Trade Agreement With India
