PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Device Approval”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

The use of Food and Drug Administration 510(k) notifications in patent litigation.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) approval process provides medical device companies with the ability to market a device after the company establishes that the device to the marketed is "substantially equivalent" to one or more predicate devices. Companies that submit 510(k) notifications should be aware, however, that a 510(k) notification is a public document that may later reappear as evidence in patent litigation. Courts have considered 510(k) notifications to be relevant evidence in determining direct and contributory infringement, patent invalidity, and patent unenforceability due to inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In one case, the court held that a substantial equivalence determination by FDA constituted evidence that can be "construed as an admission of infringement." The court also has relied on a 510(k) notification to support a finding of personal liability for a corporate officer who signed the 510(k) notification to be evidence of willful and deliberate conduct, and have awarded treble damages and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. The potential for increased risk in patent litigation is important for practitioners in the medical device industry, because more than seventy-five percent of medical devices are approved for marketing through the 510(k) process. This article reviews a number of patent cases in which a court has admitted a 510(k) notification as relevant evidence, and proposes general strategies for avoiding these situations.

Device Approval↗

Medical devices; effective date of requirement for premarket approval for three preamendment class III devices. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule to retain three class III preamendment devices in class III and to require the filing of a premarket approval application (PMA) or a notice of completion of a product development protocol (PDP) for the following devices: The lung water monitor, the powered vaginal muscle stimulator, and the stair-climbing wheelchair. The agency has summarized its findings regarding the degree of risk of illness or injury designed to be eliminated or reduced by requiring the devices to meet the statute's approval requirements and the benefits to the public from the use of the devices.

Device Approval↗

Medical devices; effective date of requirement for premarket approval for three class III preamendments devices. Final rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requiring the filing of a premarket approval application (PMA) or a notice of completion of a product development protocol (PDP) for the following three class III preamendments devices: Indwelling blood oxyhemoglobin concentration analyzer, cardiopulmonary bypass pulsatile flow generator, and the ocular plethysmograph. The agency also is summarizing its proposed findings regarding the degree of risk of illness or injury designed to be eliminated or reduced by requiring the devices to meet the statute's approval requirements and the benefits to the public from the use of the devices. This action implements certain statutory requirements.

Blood Gas Analysis↗

Medical devices; effective date of requirement for premarket approval for three class III preamendments devices--FDA. Proposed rule; opportunity to request a change in classification.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to require the filing of a premarket approval application (PMA) or a notice of completion of a product development protocol (PDP) for the following three class III preamendments devices: Lung water monitor, powered vaginal muscle stimulator for therapeutic use, and stair-climbing wheelchair. The agency also is summarizing its proposed findings regarding the degree of risk of illness or injury designed to be eliminated or reduced by requiring the devices to meet the statute's approval requirements and the benefits to the public from the use of the devices. In addition, FDA is announcing the opportunity for interested persons to request that the agency change the classification of any of the devices based on new information. This action implements certain statutory requirements.

Anesthesiology↗

Gastroenterology and urology devices; effective date of requirement for premarket approval of the implanted mechanical/hydraulic urinary continence device. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule to require the filing of a premarket approval application (PMA) or a notice of completion of a product development protocol (PDP) for the implanted mechanical/hydraulic urinary continence device, a generic type of medical device intended for the treatment of urinary incontinence. This action is being taken under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the amendments), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (the SMDA), and the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997.

Device Approval↗

HIV tests approved.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

AIDS Serodiagnosis↗

[Approval process of "medical devices" exemplified by the penile prosthesis].

The penile prosthesis AMS Hydroflex was successfully introduced in 1985, yet only 5 years later was withdrawn from the market. The approval process of medical devices in the USA and Switzerland is critically analyzed. While the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for approving the marketing of medical devices in the USA no such office exists in Switzerland. In Switzerland the physician takes full responsibility when using a device. It is, however, intended to introduce similar to the USA three regulatory control categories depending upon the degree of regulation necessary to assure safety and effectiveness of each device.

Adult↗

Mechanical devices and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

Long-term ventricular assist devices for adults have advanced far more than have suitable devices for neonates and infants. The difficulties of design and construction of miniaturized blood pumping systems and the high costs associated with developing, testing, and approval of such devices has been prohibitive. Still, there is an important clinical need for such devices as the availability of donor hearts for this age group has been especially limited. Recently, several pneumatic pulsatile pumps have been developed based on the adult experience, and the issues of regulatory approval are now assuming greater importance for these devices. This chapter reviews the current system for medical device classification and the approval processes in the United States and in Europe. This system is continually evolving, with dedicated and knowledgeable professionals charged with assuring the efficacy, safety, appropriate labeling, and continuing surveillance of approved devices. Pediatric cardiac surgeons involved in transplantation and assist devices need to be aware of the regulatory issues, and work with manufacturers and governmental agencies to make sure that successful devices are available as soon as possible for their patients.

Child↗