1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |NASA Proposes Cyber Lock-Down On Contractors

NASA Proposes Cyber Lock-Down On Contractors

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.11.06

Following an outbreak of highly publicized information security breaches ripping through the federal government and prompting new OMB "get-tough" directives, NASA is proposing a new crackdown on contractors that "(1) have physical or electronic access to NASA's computer systems, networks, or IT infrastructure; or (2) use information systems to generate, store, or exchange data with NASA or on behalf of NASA." 71 Fed. Reg. 43408 (Aug. 1, 2006). Under these proposed rules, NASA contractors face a variety of new and expanded cyber requirements that generally add cost and risk to contract performance, including: (1) submitting IT "Security Plans" compliant with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) SP 800-18; (2) performing "Risk Assessments" consistent with Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS) 199; (3) preparing contingency plans per NIST SP 800-34; (4) conducting annual IT security training; and (5) assuring that contractor personnel with access to NASA IT systems have National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI) screening.

Contacts

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. ...

View All Insights