1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New FAR Part 40 to Address Supply Chain and Information Security Requirements

New FAR Part 40 to Address Supply Chain and Information Security Requirements

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.15.24

On April 1, 2024, the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) issued a final rule updating the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to add Part 40 on information security and supply chain security. This first action did not implement any new requirements; however, separate rulemakings will follow to relocate existing information security and supply chain security policies and procedures to the new Part 40. Additionally, new related regulations will be housed in Part 40. These actions suggest that the flow of information security and supply chain regulations is likely to continue unabated for at least the next few years.

As noted, Part 40 will consolidate the various information security and supply chain security regulations currently distributed throughout the FAR. It ultimately will include regulations concerning prohibitions, exclusions, supply chain risk information sharing, safeguarding information, and supply chain security requirements. For example, the Section 889 prohibition and policies would be placed in Part 40, as would provisions implementing Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act exclusion and removal orders.

Supply chain and information risks that are not considered to be related to security, such as labor restrictions, climate risks, and human trafficking, will not be in Part 40 and will continue to be covered in other parts of the FAR.

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....