This article was originally posted on our sister blog Inside Medical Devices

Earlier this week, in a plenary vote, the EU Parliament endorsed the texts of the Regulation on Medical Devices (the “Regulation”—latest version available here) and the parallel Regulation on In-Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices (the “IVD Regulation”—latest version available here).  This presents a good opportunity to have a closer look at one of the essential questions of the revision of the medical device rules, namely, whether the scope of the Regulation changes in comparison to that of the main Medical Devices Directive 93/42/EEC (the “Directive”).  We examine below the changes to the definition of a medical device and whether the Regulation affects borderline determinations.

As discussed in our earlier post, the borderline between medical devices, medicinal products, cosmetics and foods or food supplements is often blurred.  The Regulation sheds some additional light on the definition of a medical device and strengthens the Commission’s power in relation to the borderline issues.  Nevertheless, important questions continue to exist, for instance in relation to the pharmacological versus physical (or purely chemical) mode of action of a product.
Continue Reading EU Medical Devices Regulation Series: Potential for Easing Borderline Determinations?

This article was originally posted on our sister blog Inside Medical Devices

The term “industrial scale” appears twice in the draft EU Medical Devices Regulation (“MD Regulation”) in relation to so-called “in-house devices.” The term equally appears in the draft in-vitro diagnostic medical devices (“IVD”) Regulation.

To provide perspective on the meaning of “industrial scale” and how the draft MD Regulation’s use of the term may be interpreted, this post looks at two recent judgments pertaining to medicinal products before the EU Court of Justice: Joined Cases C-544/13 and C-545/13 Abcur (link here) and Case C-276/15 Hecht-Pharma (link here). Although there are evidently major differences between the medical device and medicines regulatory regimes, these judgments nevertheless provide useful guidance to interpret the notion “(non-)industrial scale” under the draft MD Regulation.
Continue Reading EU Medical Devices Regulation Series: Interpreting the “Industrial Scale” Concept

This article was originally posted on our sister blog Inside Medical Devices

On October 5, 2015, after three years of continued discussions and negotiations on the modernization of EU medical devices and IVD rules, the Council of Ministers of the EU countries (“the Council”) agreed on a full General Approach on the review of the medical devices and IVD framework. The European Commission considers this as “a major step forward towards the adoption of new regulations on medical devices to help guarantee a high level of health and safety protection for EU citizens using these products.”

This agreement is based on the technical work of the Permanent Representatives Committee of EU countries which finalized the Council’s position on the draft Medical Devices and IVD Regulations on September 23, 2015. The core substance of the Council’s position was already agreed in a partial General Approach on the draft EU medical devices package on June 19, 2015 (for details please see our previous post of early September). The final agreement of October 2015 does not deviate from the substance of that partial agreement of June 2015. The main difference is that it includes a general approach on the recitals of the draft Regulations on medical devices and IVD. Preambles of EU legislative instruments do not have a binding effect; however, they are useful in the interpretation of rules and usually consulted by EU and Member State institutions and courts in their application of the law.
Continue Reading EU Agreement on a General Approach on the Medical Devices Package

This post was originally published on our sister blog Inside Medical Devices.

On June 19th, 2015, the Council of EU Ministers reached a partial General Approach on the review of the medical devices and in vitro medical devices (IVD) rules in the EU (an overview of the texts is accessible here).  The General Approach does not yet include the recitals to the new medical devices and IVD regulations.

The Council’s text on the new IVD Regulation significantly amends the Commission’s proposed definition of ‘companion diagnostics’, an evolution relevant to sponsors of both medicinal products and diagnostic devices.  The Council’s definition of companion diagnostics is almost identical to the definition used by the FDA, but significantly different from the European Commission’s proposal and the European Parliament’s suggested amendments.  An overview is set out below.
Continue Reading IVD Regulation and Companion Diagnostics – EU Council Dramatically Changes Definition

This article was originally published on our sister blog InsidePrivacy

May 2015 saw a number of developments in the EU mHealth sector worthy of a brief mention.  The European Commission announced that it would work on new guidance for mHealth apps, despite the European Data Protection Supervisor and British Standards Institution publishing their own just weeks earlier.  In parallel, the French data protection authority announced a possible crackdown on mHealth app non-compliance with European data protection legislation.  This post briefly summarizes these developments.
Continue Reading May 2015 EU mHealth Round-Up


A more detailed analysis of the impact of the work at the CJEU is featured in Clinica Medtech Intelligence.


Liability Spotlight now on the Notified Bodies

Background and Context

The so-called PIP-Breast-implant scandal now reaches the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As last week a German court referred a liability case to the CJEU, it is now upon the CJEU to provide further clarity on the responsibilities and liability scheme for medical devices in the EU. The key questions relate to the responsibility of the Notified Bodies which are in charge of granting the CE mark which again is required to place medical devices on the EU market. The CJEU’s answer will have an impact on the work of Notified Bodies and will be relevant for the liability of medical device manufacturers in the EU.

In the current case, the plaintiff has sued the German Notified Body TÜV Rheinland for damages as she had been implanted a PIP breast implant. PIP stands for the company name Poly Implant Prothèse which, for years, was illegally selling breast implants containing industrial silicone instead of the medical silicone for which they had received the CE mark. The founder of PIP and several former executives and managers were convicted of fraud and sentenced to jail by a court in France.
Continue Reading European Court to Clarify Responsibilities and Liability for Medical Devices

On 21 January 2015, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) launched a public consultation on how the transparency rules of Regulation EU No 536/2014 (the “Clinical Trials Regulation”) should apply to the new clinical trials database.  The consultation document of the EMA discusses the practical application of the new transparency rules, sets different options on the application of the exceptions to the disclosure of information, and invites stakeholders to comment.
Continue Reading EMA Transparency Policy – EMA Launches Public Consultation On The Publication Of Information Under The New EU Clinical Trials Regulation

 This post originally appeared on our sister blog, InsideMedicalDevices.

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has launched an informal survey of current practices relating to the use of data-enabled medical devices and apps.

The short and anonymous survey explores whether organisations have put in place specific policies and procedures, asset registers, IT security requirements for medical device procurement policies, information governance and incident response processes, and an “end of life” policy for defunct/decommissioned devices.
Continue Reading UK Data Protection Regulator Surveys Use Of Smart Medical Devices

On 20 November 2014 the German Supreme Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, “BVerwG”) confirmed that nicotine-containing liquids that are vaporised and inhaled via e-cigarettes are not medicines and therefore e-cigarettes are not medical devices.
Continue Reading The German Supreme Administrative Court Confirms That E-Cigarettes Are Not Medicines Or Medical Devices

This post was originally published on our sister blog Inside Medical Devices.

On 18 July 2014, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) announced that it will create a new independent Devices Expert Advisory Committee (DEAC) before April 2015.

The DEAC will be responsible for providing independent expert advice to help the MHRA regulate medical devices.  The MHRA hopes that the DEAC will help the MHRA “have stronger links with the wider scientific community to facilitate access to specialist expertise.”  The DEAC is expected to be relatively small in size with around 12 members and a chair to enable the group to be more agile and responsive to important regulatory issues concerning medical devices.
Continue Reading MHRA Creates New Expert Advisory Group on Medical Devices