Remove category
article thumbnail

Unpacking Averages: How Accurate Do Class II Medical Devices Need to Be to Obtain 510(k) Clearance?

Health Law Advisor

It’s common for a client to show up at my door and explain that they have performance data on a medical device they have been testing, and for the client to ask me if the performance they found is adequate to obtain FDA clearance through the 510(k) process. Indeed, 58% of the results are in that category. Eyes wide open.

FDA 111
article thumbnail

SQA Regulatory Surveillance Summary | Monthly Update 2022 – September/October

SQA

ANVISA announced major updates to its Resolution of the Collegiate Board of Directors (RDC) 185/2001. The CMDE published additional documents (link in Chinese) that outline the recommended paths for clinical evaluation of certain devices under select sub-categories of the Medical Device Classification Catalog. CMDE Announcement No.

FDA 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

A Painful Preemption Decision

Drug & Device Law

555 (2009), a prescription drug preemption case, despite the relevant drug(s) being over-the-counter (“OTC”), and thus approved under an entirely different FDA regulatory process. 341, 352 (2001) (“neither an express pre-emption provision nor a saving clause bars the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”).

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Who Needs a Lawyer in the Eleventh Circuit?

Drug & Device Law

The plaintiff in Jacob sued the manufacturer of a Class III, FDA premarket-approved medical device. First, the plaintiff’s non-parallel claims were “preempted to the extent” that they would have imposed “alleged labeling or manufacturing requirements that are different from, or in addition to, those imposed by the FDA.” 341 (2001).

article thumbnail

Logical Contradiction Doctrine:  Buckman for Textualists

Drug & Device Law

341 (2001), with the rejection of the so-called “purposes and objectives” prong of implied preemption by the most conservative justices (at least in terms of federalism) on the Court. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S.

FDA 72
article thumbnail

Thinking About the FDA’s Alternative Summary Reporting Program

Drug & Device Law

He came across several preemption decisions involving defendants who employed the FDA’s “alternative summary reporting” (“ASR”) system that the agency operated for about 20 years, “from 1997 through June 2019.” without adversely affecting FDA’s ability to monitor and react to such events.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

FDA and Off-Label Communication – Getting Closer to Truth

Drug & Device Law

In addition to its recent revamp of its “§510(k)” substantial equivalence clearance process for medical devices, (see our post here ), the FDA has also been active with respect to off-label communications – another regulatory area of continuing interest to this Blog. FDA , 119 F. Caronia , 703 F.3d 3d 149 (2d Cir. 3d 196 (S.D.N.Y.

FDA 64