1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Double Whammy: NIST Unveils Draft Enhanced Security Requirements and Revisions to NIST SP 800-171

Double Whammy: NIST Unveils Draft Enhanced Security Requirements and Revisions to NIST SP 800-171

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.21.19

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released drafts of NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 and a companion standard NIST SP 800-171B, designed to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) from advanced persistent threats (APTs). 800-171B details 33 “enhanced” controls, reflecting core principles of penetration resistance, damage-limiting operations, and resiliency. Specific controls include those related to segregation, hunt teams, AI-enabled tools, IoT security, and supply chain – some of which arguably do not have firm industry definitions.

Unlike the non-substantive updates to Revision 2, 800-171B will apply only to contractors handling CUI that the government determines is part of a “critical program” or is a “high value asset.” A cost estimate from the Department of Defense – expected to quickly implement 800-171B – anticipates that less than one percent of its contractors will be impacted but that (allowable) costs could exceed $1 million.

Comments for all three documents are due July 19, 2019. 

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....

View All Insights