FDA – Duane Morris Products Liability

July 2, 2024 by Duane Morris

Plan Ahead to Protect Your Innovation: Product Liability Risks for Medtech Startups

A medtech startup typically focuses on two key legal needs: (1) ensuring that its technology has proper and thorough intellectual property protection, and (2) outlining a detailed pathway for FDA clearance. Those two priorities are understandable. The areas of intellectual property protection and a regulatory pathway are threshold issues that every potential investor wants addressed before funding a company. The hypothetical risk of future product liability litigation is not as high a priority for startup companies who have yet to commercialize. However, with the recent surge in such litigation pursuing the life sciences industry, companies are on notice to start prioritizing product liability risk management.

Read the MD+DI article by Sean Burke, vice chair of Duane Morris’ Products Liability and Toxic Torts division.

April 16, 2024 by Duane Morris

FDA Again Confirms No Asbestos in Cosmetic Talc Products

On April 5, 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that its third-party testing of cosmetic talc products for 2023 identified no traces of asbestos in any of the 50 cosmetic samples tested. FDA’s 2023 results, which were reported in a Cosmetics Constituent Update, are consistent with its testing for 2022 and 2021, which also failed to detect asbestos in any of the 50 cosmetic samples tested for those years. Read the full Alert on Duane Morris’ website.

September 27, 2023September 27, 2023 by Will Heaston

FDA Releases New Draft Guidance Documents to Modernize the 510(k) Process

On September 6, 2023, the FDA released three draft guidance documents that seek to “modernize” the 510(k) premarket notification process. Ever since the FDA first proposed “transformative new steps” to the program in 2018, the agency has promised to further update the 510(k) clearance pathway in an effort to better balance technological innovation and patient safety. In issuing these draft guidance documents, the FDA has followed through on that promise.

Continue reading “FDA Releases New Draft Guidance Documents to Modernize the 510(k) Process”

August 16, 2023 by Duane Morris

FDA Draft Guidance Recommends Info to Include in Patient-Matched Guides to Orthopedic Implants

This summer, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued draft guidance regarding patient-matched guides to orthopedic implants, which are intended to assist in the execution of a pre-surgical plan concurred upon by the patient’s healthcare professional to position an orthopedic implant in a way consistent with the implant’s indicated use. In the draft guidance, FDA recommends information to include in pre-market submissions for patient-matched guides to orthopedic implants. FDA also suggests information for manufacturers to consider when creating the design process for patient-matched guides.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

August 10, 2023 by Duane Morris

FDA Issues New Nitrosamine Impurities Guidance

By Alan Klein, Patrick Gallagher and Michael Fox

On August 4, 2023, the FDA issued a new Guidance to the pharmaceutical industry relating to large molecule drugs left unaddressed in its earlier nitrosamine Guidance publications. (Access the complete Guidance or the abbreviated version.)

Reacting to considerable input from the pharmaceutical industry, both brand and generic, following the agency’s Federal Register request for and receipt of extensive comments on these issues, including scientific data furnished to the agency by NDA and ANDA sponsors over the past year and a half, FDA has now provided drug manufacturers with critical guidelines for conforming their products to what the agency has determined to be safe nitrosamine exposure limits for patients. This comes on the heels of setting similar exposure limits for these products late last month by the European Union’s chief drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency. In its current Guideline, FDA has ranked impacted prescription drugs into 5 categories depending upon their carcinogenic potency, with “1” being the most potent, and “5” the least. Instructing the industry on their responsibility to minimize or eliminate nitrosamine impurities in their products to the extent feasible, the agency has extended the timeline for this task to August 2025, recognizing the complexity of this process and the need to avoid recalls and market disruptions of widely prescribed and important medications.

June 28, 2021 by Duane Morris

The Importance of 510(k) Evidence to Ensuring a Fair Trial

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has received more attention than perhaps ever before. While Americans anxiously awaited for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA and its regulatory scheme were ever-present topics on the news and in social media. The American population’s newfound familiarity with the FDA is especially pertinent in a medical device litigation context. As litigators well know, jurors already enter a courtroom with preconceived notions of medical device companies, the FDA and the relationship between the two. So how will this newfound knowledge of the FDA influence juror opinions? Put another way, what would happen if a jury participating in a medical device trial failed to hear any reference to the FDA at all? Potentially, the results would be catastrophic to device manufacturers.

To read the full text of this article co-authored by Duane Morris partner Sean Burke, please visit the AdvaMed website.

June 12, 2020 by Duane Morris

New FDA Compliance Program Details FDA Expectations for Inspections of CDER- or CDRH-Led Combination Product Manufacturers

On June 4, 2020, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration implemented a compliance program, which explains how CGMP requirements are to be applied to combination products, the subject of a final guidance issued in January 2017. In particular, the new program document focuses on providing a framework for conducting inspections of manufacturers of single-entity and co-packaged finished combination products—led by either the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or the Center for Devices and Radiological Health—that include both (i) drug and device; or (ii) biological product and device constituent parts. In addition, because the underlying 2017 Guidance was issued by OPD, CBER, CDER and CDRH collectively, the same principals would like apply to inspections in which CBER is the lead center.

To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.

June 2, 2020 by Duane Morris

Two New Guidances from FDA for Investigational New Drug Applications and Clinical Trial Expectations for Drugs and Biological Products Proposed for Use Against COVID-19

On May 11, 2020, the FDA issued two new guidances for industry and investigators of drugs and biological products proposed for use against COVID-19. These two guidances, “COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: General Considerations for Pre-IND Meetings Requests for COVID-19 Related Drugs and Biological Products” and “COVID-19: Developing Drugs and Biological Products for Treatment of Prevention,” provide insight into the expectations of the FDA regarding new treatment drug development programs in the fight against COVID-19.

To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.

May 24, 2019 by Duane Morris

Supreme Court Rules That Judges, Not Juries, Must Decide Preemption of Failure-to-Warn Claims

On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a rare unanimous decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, et al., holding that judges, not juries, must decide whether state law failure-to-warn claims against brand-name drug manufacturers are preempted by the FDA’s labeling regulations. In so holding, the Court further clarified the preemption standard set forth in an earlier decision, Wyeth v. Levine, concluding that such claims are preempted where a drug manufacturer can show “that it fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve changing the drug’s label to include that warning.”

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

April 2, 2019May 7, 2019 by Duane Morris

Emerging Product Liability Concerns for Medical 3D Printing

Additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3-dimensional (3D) printing, has been billed as the new industrial revolution. It is a lofty prediction; but we are seeing this prognostication materialize. Everyday consumer products ranging from children’s toys to running shoes are being 3D printed, sometimes right in consumer stores or at home. More and more manufacturers have begun or are exploring additive manufacturing options for their products. 3D-printed products even won an Oscar, when Ruth Carter won Best Costume Design for her work in the movie Black Panther, where portions of Carter’s costumes were 3D printed. From everyday consumer products, to its appearance on the red carpet, 3D printing has arrived.

Recognizing the potential advantages, endless possibilities, and unique manufacturing capabilities offered by 3D printing, more and more medical device manufacturers are entering this new field of technology. However, industry standards and regulations lag behind the pace of innovation. The unique aspects and potential availability of additive manufacturing raise novel products liability issues that may impact traditional product liability litigation doctrines. This article examines the current status of additive manufacturing as well as potential issues and uncertainties it raises for the future of product-liability litigation.

To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris partner Sean K. Burke, please visit the MD&DI Qmed website.