Medical Devices

Subscribe to Medical Devices

The spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created an urgent need to scale up the production and supply of essential medical equipment, including so-called Rapidly Manufactured Ventilator Systems (RMVSs), to treat COVID-19 patients. To help meet this challenge, the UK government announced on 3 April 2020 that it will indemnify designers and manufacturers of RMVSs for claims relating to infringement of third-party intellectual property (IP) rights and for product liability claims resulting from defective equipment.

Formal notification of the two indemnities was given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove, to the Public Accounts Committee on 3 April 2020.[1] In the notice, Minister Grove noted that he could not give the normal fourteen sitting days’ notice because “commercial negotiations have only just concluded and contract signature did not allow further delay”. Details of the terms of the referenced agreement have not, however, been provided, as they were said to be commercially sensitive and would continue to be until negotiations had been finalised. It is therefore not yet clear who are the parties to the agreement, whether any cap will apply to the indemnities, whether the government will offer the same terms across the board, or whether it will negotiate them in individual supply agreements.

…
Continue Reading UK Government Offers IP Indemnity to Designers and Manufacturers of Ventilators for COVID-19 Patients

With only two months to go before the date of application of the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) on 26 May 2020, the Commission has taken various steps towards its implementation. As we have discussed, while there are lots of good intentions, there is still much to be done –  although it now seems that a delay to the May date is on the horizon.

Last week, the MDCG published a number of guidance documents providing much needed clarity on some of the “priority” areas. These are set out below, with particular comments on the guidance relevant to the transitional provisions under the MDR.

…
Continue Reading Two months to go: Latest on implementation of EU MDR (Part 2)

There are now only two months to go before the date of application of the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) on 26 May 2020. We have previously published updates on various implementation activities, and the concerns of industry and stakeholders that the deadline has been fast approaching but that there remains a huge amount to be finalised. The difficulties surrounding Brexit, and now the coronavirus pandemic, only add to these concerns. With the short amount of time remaining, we set out in this series of posts a summary of recent key developments.

As expected, the recent activity is focused on the MDR, and does not, on the whole, address the In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation (IVDR), which is due to be applicable in 2022. While this is a pragmatic approach from the institutions given current timing, it remains the case that IVD manufacturers have little clarity on how the IVDR will operate, and it seems, are unlikely to obtain any in the near future.

…
Continue Reading Two months to go: Latest on the implementation of EU MDR (Part 1)

Opinion of the CJEU Advocate-General in Case C-581/18 RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IAED SA: application of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality in a medical device case.

Background

The effects of the Poly Implant Prothèse SA (PIP) defective breast implant scandal continue to be felt almost ten years since it first came to light that PIP had fraudulently used cheaper, industrial grade silicone in the implants that it manufactured. Due to PIP’s insolvency, those affected have attempted to obtain compensation from other sources, including the relevant notified body, TÜV Rheinland,[1] on the basis that this body had negligently certified PIP’s products and the French regulatory authorities.

Case against PIP’s insurer

The Opinion of Advocate-General Bobek in Case C-581/18 RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA concerns a German claimant (RB) who pursued a case for compensation in respect of defective breast implants in Germany against Allianz,[2] the insurers of the now-defunct PIP in France. Medical device manufacturers were required under French law to have insurance cover for harm suffered by third parties arising from their activities. PIP had a policy of cover with Allianz, but the cover was limited to damage caused in France. Allianz relied on that territorial limitation. RB maintained that the territorial limitation of insurance cover to French territory was not lawful and constituted an infringement of free movement of goods.

The German court referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), asking whether the territorial limitation in the Allianz insurance policy constituted a violation of Article 18 TFEU, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

Within the scope of EU law

Allianz and the French government argued that the case fell outside the scope of EU law on the basis that the issues involved a German patient who underwent surgery in Germany and were therefore purely internal to Germany. The Commission seemingly adopted a similar view.

Advocate-General Bobek disagrees, concluding that it is not possible to say that the situation in the present case falls outside the scope of EU law as it involved the cross-border movement of goods (PIP implants) and provision of services (insurance) in the context of the partial harmonisation of medical devices and liability for defective products under EU law.

…
Continue Reading Medical Devices and Compulsory Insurance in the EU

You will be aware from previous posts that industry has been concerned for some time about the amount of work to be done to ensure compliance with the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR), and whether this can be completed by May 2020, the date of application of the Regulation. However, so far, the Commission’s response has been that the current deadline is “realistic and achievable” and that there were no plans to delay implementation.

This week, as an early Christmas present to industry, while there is no delay to the data of application of the MDR, there is some good news: a “corrigendum”, or correction, to the MDR, has been approved by the Parliament that adds certain Class I devices to those devices that benefit from the transitional period under the MDR. This will give manufacturers of certain Class I devices additional time to comply with the Regulations.

…
Continue Reading Delays to the EU Medical Devices Regulations

Last week, the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) published two new guidance documents under the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Regulation (IVDR). These concern the “person responsible for regulatory compliance” and the “implant card” required under the new Medical Devices Regulations (MDR).

These are the latest of the guidance published by the MDCG and collated on the European Commission’s website before the Regulations come into force in May 2020 (for medical devices) and May 2022 (for in vitro diagnostic medical devices).

Persons Responsible for Regulatory Compliance

Under Article 15 of the MDR and Article 15 of the IVDR, “Manufacturers shall have available within their organisation at least one person responsible for regulatory compliance who possesses the requisite expertise in the field of medical devices.” While the Regulations set out requirements on the qualification of the PRRC and an overview of their responsibilities, the guidance adds additional detail to these requirements, and clarifies the PRRC requirements for manufacturers and authorised representatives (AR), notably that:

…
Continue Reading New guidance under the EU MDR

As you will be aware from previous blog posts, the new EU Medical Devices Regulations (the MDR and IVDR) will be applicable in May 2020 (for medical devices) and May 2022 (for in vitro diagnostic medical devices). The European Commission and medical device coordination group (MDCG) are busy preparing the guidance documents and implementing legislation to ensure the Regulations can function. Notified bodies are also going through the designation procedure to ensure they can accept applications under the MDR and that products can be placed on the market under the new Regulations. However, there is still much to do, and progress has been slow. We set out below an update on the current state of play.

…
Continue Reading Update on the European MDR and IVDR

On 3 June 2019, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) launched a public consultation on a draft guideline providing guidance on the quality dossier requirements for Drug-Device Combinations (DDCs) in the context of a marketing authorisation or post-authorisation application.

DDCs are human medicines that include a medical device. The guideline covers those devices that are necessary for the administration, dosing or use of the medicine. They can be integral, co-packaged or referred to in the product information of the medicine but supplied and obtained separately.

…
Continue Reading EMA releases draft guidelines on drug-device combinations

Apologies that it has been a while since we’ve posted! We have lots in the pipeline, starting with this webinar.

Data and Its Impact on Medical Technology Companies Doing Business in the EU

Today’s medical technology industry is being transformed by data—clinical data, vigilance data, real world data and personal data. As such, there is…