1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |NIST Enhances Final Draft of NIST SP 800-172, Enhanced Security Requirements

NIST Enhances Final Draft of NIST SP 800-172, Enhanced Security Requirements

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.08.20

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently released the final public draft of NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-172, formerly known as Draft NIST SP 800-171B. Building on the security requirements in NIST SP 800-171, the applicable standard under DFARS 252.204-7012, 800-172 provides 34 enhanced requirements to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) associated with critical programs or high value assets from the risks posed by advanced persistent threats (APTs). 

Unlike prior drafts, 800-172 incorporates the protection strategy and desired effects on the adversary directly into the implementation guidance for each control. The Department of Defense (DoD) expects 800-172 to impact fewer than one percent of defense contractors. However, numerous requirements from Draft 800-171B were incorporated into the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Levels 4 and 5, likely giving commenters the opportunity to affect future CMMC revisions.

Comments for the final public draft are due August 21, 2020.

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