Blog December 2, 2020
FDA Exempts Medical Device Data System from All Medical Device Regulation
- Person title
On February 9, the FDA issued a final guidance document essentially deregulating Medical Device Data Systems (and the similar Medical Image Storage Devices and Medical Image Communications Devices). MDDS devices provide electronic transfer, storage, or display of medical device data, or the electronic conversion of medical device data in accordance with a present specification. MDDS devices may not be used for analyzing or manipulating the data, generating signals that control another medical device, or active patient monitoring.
As stated by the FDA, due to the low risk these devices pose to patients and their importance in advancing digital health the agency does not intend to enforce compliance with the regulatory controls that otherwise would apply even to Class I devices that are exempt from premarket notification requirements. This is a rather unusual step, and it essentially exempts MDDS devices from all regulation, even establishment registration, device listing, and post-market reporting of adverse incidents.
The FDA moved quickly on this issue, following up its draft guidance issued only eight months earlier. Draft guidances often take years to become final, and many linger in draft form seemingly forever. Indeed, by taking this action in a guidance document rather than pursuant to a more time-consuming rulemaking proceeding, the FDA was able to streamline the deregulation of such devices. This is an important step that should encourage industry to develop more MDDS devices, which the FDA described as the "foundation" for inter-communication necessary for "better, more efficient patient care and improved health outcomes" offered by digital health technologies.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog December 9, 2019
Blog July 26, 2019
Heightened Scrutiny of Specimens of Use at U.S. Trademark Office
Blog July 3, 2019
Legal Alert: New Rule Requires Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants, Registrants, and Parties at TTAB to Be Represented by U.S. Attorney
Blog April 2, 2018
USPTO Pilot Program Regarding Specimen Authenticity
Blog July 5, 2017
U.S. Trademark Office Clarifies Filing Deadlines for Resurrecting Dead Applications and Registrations
Blog June 8, 2017
Even GOOGLE Can Google After All
Blog May 19, 2017
What Does The "In" in "Incontestable" Mean?
Blog February 7, 2017
U.S. Trademark Office Sharpens Machete for Pruning Deadwood
Blog February 3, 2017
FDA Final Guidance on Nonproprietary Names of Biological Products
Article March 8, 2023
Senior Principal Terry Mahn Authors Medical Device + Diagnostic Industry Article "This Company's False Compliance With CISPR 11 Resulted in a $12 Million FCA...
Article February 17, 2023
Principals Patrick Darno and Peter Fasse Author "Patent Strategies for Protecting Bioinformatics Inventions" for IAM
Article February 3, 2023
Fish & Richardson Attorneys Author IAM Article "Neglect Begets Opportunity in Femtech IP"
Blog January 17, 2023
Biosimilars 2022 Year in Review
Article October 20, 2022
Life Sciences Entrepreneur Sourcebook | Intellectual Property: What It Is and Why You Should Care
Blog September 15, 2022
Legal Alert: What to Know About the USPTO's Duty of Candor Guidance Regarding FDA Submissions
Blog January 11, 2022
Biosimilars 2021 Year in Review
Blog December 2, 2020
IP and Cannabis: The Current Landscape
Blog August 8, 2019
5G Developments: From Rollout to Regulation
Article April 20, 2017