This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The new guidance from the European Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) covers “borderline products” not easily categorized either as medical devices falling under MDR requirements or medical products for human use falling under Directive 2001/83/EC (MPD) requirements for CE Marking.
Requirements for classification and related issues established under RDC 185/2001, as well as other relevant medical device regulations, will apply for SaMD, as well. China Regulatory Roundup: Latest Guidelines for Medical Device and IVD Compliance, 17 March 2022.
ANVISA announced major updates to its Resolution of the Collegiate Board of Directors (RDC) 185/2001. China’s Center for Medical Device Evaluation (CMDE) Update Compliance Guidelines and Recommended Paths for Clinical Evaluation Paths for Certain Medical Devices, 25 July 2022. Address gaps in existing compliance requirements.
As the DDL blog has previously reported , Michigan’s longstanding presumption of non-defectiveness applicable to FDA-approved drugs was recently repealed by the Michigan legislature in S.B. As this provision is newly applicable to FDA-approved products, it has not been tested by the courts on this issue. Lynch & Co. Flex Techs.,
Today’s case is a counterpart to our post a few months ago about a case applying Buckman preemption to a contract dispute where adjudicating the alleged breach would have forced the court to decide FDA regulatory issues. 4, 353 (2001). In that case ( Thogus Products Co. Bleep, LLC , 2023 WL 5607458 (N.D. 341, 349 n.4,
The parties’ contract required the supplier to deliver components that “meet FDA standards for medical devices.” The manufacturer claimed that the supplier breached the contract when it delivered components that, according to the manufacturer, violated the FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) regulations. 4, 353 (2001).
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. 18, 2022) ( available here ).
FDA litigation, back in April, the United States Supreme Court had just stayed what we described as “a truly ridiculous decision purporting to invalidate a number of actions taken by FDA with regard to mifepristone, the only currently marketed approved medication for medical abortion.” 341 (2001), is so important. FDA , 727 F.
FDA litigation, back in April, the United States Supreme Court had just stayed what we described as “a truly ridiculous decision purporting to invalidate a number of actions taken by FDA with regard to mifepristone, the only currently marketed approved medication for medical abortion.” 341 (2001), is so important. FDA , 727 F.
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.
640.65, an FDA biologics regulation that requires entities that collect blood via a particular method to establish “donor identification system[s]” that “positively identifies each donor and relates such donor directly to his blood and its components as well as to his accumulated records and laboratory data.”. 341 (2001), the U.S.
In our initial post, we focused on the exception to the presumption, which allows liability to be imposed if a plaintiff alleges and ultimately proves that the defendant manufacturer committed fraud on the FDA. Today’s post focuses not on the exception to the compliance presumption but on the antecedent issue of when the presumption applies.
2022), a short decision that came out the right way, but did so based on a problematic statute that creates a rebuttal presumption that warning labels approved by the FDA are adequate as a matter of state law. Stated differently, the rebuttal provision makes allegations and evidence of fraud on the FDA a prerequisite to state-law liability.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 26,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content