throbber

`VASCULAR SOLUTIONS LLC;
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.á R.L.,
`ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`AND TELEFLEX LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiffs/
`Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`Court File No. 0:19-cv-1760 (PJS/TNL)
`
`DECLARATION OF HEATHER S.
`ROSECRANS
`
`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 30
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC. AND
`MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants/
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`I, Heather S. Rosecrans, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic
`
`Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Medtronic”) to provide my expert opinions in this matter. I
`
`make this declaration in opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by
`
`Plaintiffs Vascular Solutions LLC, Teleflex Innovations S.a.r.l, Arrow International, Inc.
`
`and Teleflex LLC (collectively, “Teleflex”). If called to testify, I could and would testify
`
`to the following facts and opinions.
`
`I.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`2. My educational background and professional history are summarized in the
`
`below paragraphs. My curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`A.
`
`Education
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 2 of 30
`
`3.
`
`In 1976, I was awarded a Bachelor’s Degree from Pfeiffer College where I
`
`majored in Biology.
`
`B.
`
`4.
`
`FDA Career
`
`Shortly after graduation, I began a 33-year career at FDA – the majority of
`
`which was spent working in what is now known as the Center for Devices and
`
`Radiological Health (“CDRH” or “the Center”). CDRH is responsible for regulating
`
`firms that manufacture, repackage, re-label, and/or import medical devices for
`
`commercial distribution in the United States.
`
`5.
`
`From 1978 to 1980, I held the position of Biologist in the Division of
`
`Clinical Laboratory Devices in the premarket review office at the Bureau of Medical
`
`Devices (now CDRH). My principal responsibilities included reviewing and tracking of
`
`premarket notification submissions (“510(k)s”) and Premarket Approval Applications
`
`(“PMAs”). Additionally, I was responsible for researching, interpreting, and drafting
`
`proposed and final microbiology devices classification regulations.1
`
`6.
`
`In 1980, I was assigned to the PMA Section in the premarket review office
`
`where I served as a Consumer Safety Officer. The PMA Section (later renamed “PMA
`
`Staff” and now called Division of Regulatory Programs 1 (Submission Support))
`
`oversees and coordinates the administrative and regulatory review of PMAs, product
`
`development protocols (“PDPs”), Humanitarian Device Exemptions (“HDE”) and
`
`associated submissions such as Environmental Assessments, Color Additive Petitions,
`
`
`1 See 21 C.F.R. Part 866 (final regulations).
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 3 of 30
`
`Device Master Files, patent term extension petitions, and postapproval reports under
`
`Section 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA” or “the Act”).2
`
`7.
`
`The CDRH PMA Section was in the newly organized Program
`
`Management Staff (“PMS”) and later called the Program Operations Staff (“POS”) in the
`
`Office of Device Evaluation (“ODE”) at CDRH. I held the position of Consumer Safety
`
`Officer in the PMA Section from 1980 until 1987. In this role, I was responsible for
`
`overseeing the review of PMAs and PDPs to ensure that the applications were reviewed
`
`in accordance with the statutory criteria and established regulations, procedures, policies,
`
`and time frames as well as participating in the development of related regulations,
`
`procedures, policies, and time frames. During this time, I was also responsible for
`
`developing appropriate educational materials and other guidance regarding PMA-related
`
`activities for use by CDRH, including the review staff, other FDA medical product
`
`Centers, and other stakeholders. I also provided training on PMAs and PDPs for the
`
`agency as well as for external stakeholders.
`
`8.
`
`In 1987, I joined the 510(k) Section of POS in ODE. The 510(k) Section
`
`(now known as the “510(k) Staff”) is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the
`
`regulatory and administrative review of 510(k) submissions in CDRH, assisting other
`
`Centers at FDA with 510(k)s, as well as providing information on the 510(k) program to
`
`other regulatory agencies and stakeholders.
`
`2 FDCA § 515, 21 U.S.C. § 360e.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 4 of 30
`
`9.
`
`From 1987 until 1992, I served as a Consumer Safety Officer in the 510(k)
`
`Section, where I provided regulatory, administrative, and policy oversight of CDRH’s
`
`review of 510(k)s. While serving in the 510(k) Section, I also assisted in writing the
`
`interim and final rules titled, “Medical Devices; Substantial Equivalence; 510(k)
`
`Summaries and 510(k) Statements, Class III Summary and Certification; Confidentiality
`
`of Information.”3 Additionally, I established the process for the rescission of 510(k)
`
`substantial equivalence decisions and worked on a proposed rule for the process.
`
`10.
`
`From 1992 to 2010, I held several changing titles that all involved the same
`
`job responsibilities and level of seniority. These titles included: (1) Acting Section Chief
`
`of the 510(k) Section; (2) Supervisory Consumer Safety Officer of the 510(k) Staff; and
`
`(3) Director of the 510(k) Staff. In this role, I was the primary contact on issues related
`
`to the implementation of the 510(k) requirements under the Safe Medical Devices Act of
`
`1990 (“SMDA”)4, 510(k) Summaries, 510(k) Statements, and Class III Certifications and
`
`Summaries to ensure the uniform interpretation of the law.5 I supervised the
`
`programmatic review of 510(k) submissions and 513(g) requests, device classification
`
`processes, petitions for reclassification, petitions for Class II exemption from 510(k), and
`
`other regulatory requirements. Additionally, I was responsible for drafting regulations
`
`regarding the above areas. I also trained CDRH and FDA’s Center for Biologics
`
`
`3 See 59 Fed. Reg. 64,295 (Dec. 14, 1994) (final rule); 57 Fed. Reg. 18,062 (Apr. 28, 1992) (interim rule).
`
`4 See Pub. L. No. 101-629 (1990).
`
`5 Although the law was passed in 1990, this requirement was not implemented until 1992.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 5 of 30
`
`Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) staff on statutory and regulatory requirements as well
`
`as procedures and policies—including any new regulations, policies, or procedures. I
`
`coordinated the regulatory review process of 510(k) submissions, including device
`
`determinations, between the CDRH premarket review staff and the CDRH Office of
`
`Compliance staff. I also managed any necessary coordination with the Office of
`
`Combination Products (“OCP”) (prior to 2002 when OCP was established, FDA’s
`
`Ombudsman handled combination products), the Center for Drug Evaluation and
`
`Research (“CDER”), and CBER for these programs.
`
`11.
`
`In 2009, I served as the CDRH lead in responding to the Government
`
`Accountability Office (“GAO”) study of the 510(k) program. Also in 2009, I served as a
`
`point of contact when FDA commissioned the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) to
`
`undertake an assessment of the 510(k) program to determine what, if any, changes should
`
`be made to the program.
`
`12. During the IOM’s 18-month review of the 510(k) program, I provided
`
`training to the IOM review committee to educate members on the 510(k) program at their
`
`first public meeting in March 2010. My presentation to the IOM committee was titled,
`
`“Understanding the Premarket Notification (510(k)) Process: History from 1976 to
`
`2010.” As a member of the CDRH 510(k) Working Group, I also participated in the
`
`internal evaluation of the 510(k) program and subsequent “Plan of Action for
`
`Implementation of 510(k) and Science Recommendations,” which was published in draft
`
`in August 2010.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 6 of 30
`
`13. Additionally, while Director of the 510(k) Staff, I was responsible for
`
`identifying and resolving precedent-setting issues arising from reviews. I also provided
`
`expert consultation for the CDRH premarket review staff for the administrative and
`
`regulatory review of 510(k) submissions, including unique substantially equivalent
`
`decisions, 510(k) rescissions, not actively regulated device decisions, and classification
`
`and reclassification for a device type, as well as 513(g) requests.
`
`C.
`
`Professional Publications and Presentations
`
`14. During my time at FDA, I co-authored numerous guidance documents
`
`intended to provide FDA’s current thinking to FDA staff and all stakeholders on issues
`
`relating to 510(k) submissions. Those guidance documents include (but are not limited
`
`to):
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Guidance for Industry: Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to
`
`an Existing Device (K-97)” (1997);
`
`“Guidance for Industry: Procedures for Class II Device Exemptions from
`
`Premarket Notification” (1998);
`
`“Guidance for Industry: Frequently Asked Questions on the New 510(k)
`
`Paradigm” (1998);
`
`“Guidance for Industry: Use of Standards in Substantial Equivalence
`
`Determinations” (2000);
`
`“Guidance for Industry: Determination of Intended Use for 510(k) Devices”
`
`(2002);
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 7 of 30
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Guidance for Industry: Format for Traditional and Abbreviated 510(k)s”
`
`(2005); and
`
`“Guidance for Industry: User Fees and Refunds for Premarket Notification
`
`Submissions (510(k)s)” (2004).
`
`15.
`
`I also coauthored “Draft Rule: Medical Devices; Rescission of
`
`Substantially Equivalent Decisions and Rescission Appeal Procedures” (2001).
`
`16. As mentioned previously, while at CDRH I was responsible for educating
`
`FDA staff on regulations and policies related to 510(k) reviews. I served as an “FDA
`
`Instructor” for multiple training sessions, which educated staff from CDRH, CDER,
`
`CBER, and the FDA field force on various subjects related to premarket regulation. The
`
`following is a sample of FDA training sessions where I served as an FDA Instructor
`
`during my tenure at FDA:
`
`“510(k), Reclassification & 513(g) – New Reviewer Training” (1990 –
`
`2006);
`
`“CBER/CDRH Reviewer Best Practices Workshop” (2002 - 2005);
`
`“510(k) Training for CBER and CDER with the Office of Combination
`
`Products” (2006);
`
`“FDA Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Workshop: Practical
`
`Considerations in Preparing 510(k)s” (2004); and
`
`“Food and Drug Law Institute – CDRH In-House Training” (2004).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 8 of 30
`
`17.
`
`I have also represented and spoken on behalf of FDA in multiple forums,
`
`including national conferences, FDA advisory committee meetings, and international
`
`symposiums. In this role, I provided training on topics including:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (“FDAMA”);
`
`Priority Premarket Implementation – 510(k) Intended Use;
`
`Reviewer Best Practices;
`
`510(k) Medical Device User Fee Modernization Act (“MDUFMA”)
`
`Premarket Training;
`
`In Vitro Diagnostic Devices;
`
`Practical Considerations in Preparing 510(k)s;
`
`CDRH Premarket Regulation of Combination Products;
`
`510(k) Reclassification;
`
`Medical Device Classification; and
`
`513(g) Requests.
`
`18.
`
`The following is a sample of events at which I provided guidance to
`
`stakeholders regarding the FDA 510(k) program during my tenure at FDA:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Regulatory Affairs Professional Society (“RAPS”) International
`
`Symposium (2003);
`
`Advanced Medical Technology Association’s (“AdvaMed”) 13th Annual
`
`Device Submissions Workshop (2003);
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`Page 8
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 9 of 30
`
`•
`
`Annual FDA – Orange County Regulatory Affairs Education Conference
`
`(“OCRA”) (2004);
`
`• Medical Device Manufacturers Association (“MDMA”) 510(k) Workshop:
`
`What Every Medical Technology Company Should Know About the 510(k)
`
`Process (2004);
`
`AdvaMed Workshop: How to Plan for Premarket Meetings with CDRH
`
`(2005);
`
`RAPS Workshop: Today’s 510(k) Update (2005);
`
`Association of Clinical Research Professional’s Premarket Notification
`
`Conference (2008); and
`
`American Medical Association’s Advisory Committee regarding “Process
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`for FDA Approval” (2008).
`
`D.
`
`Present Positions
`
`19. Currently, I serve as Executive Vice President of Medical Devices and
`
`Combination Products at Greenleaf Health, Inc. (“Greenleaf”). In this role, I am
`
`responsible for providing strategic regulatory consulting services for Greenleaf clients. I
`
`advise on issues related to the review of 510(k) submissions, CDRH regulatory policies,
`
`and FDA’s regulation of combination products.
`
`20. Additionally, I serve as Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at the Medical
`
`Device Manufacturers Association (“MDMA”). In this role, I offer policy advice to
`
`MDMA and its members regarding FDA device regulation.
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`Page 9
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 10 of 30
`
`E.
`
`21.
`
`Recent Speaking Engagements
`
`I continue to speak at industry and other stakeholder events where I provide
`
`insight and guidance regarding FDA’s 510(k) program, including (but not limited to) the
`
`following events:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Regulatory Affairs Professional Society (RAPS) San Francisco: “510(k)
`
`Requirements and Guidance” (2010);
`
`MedCon 2011: “A Historical Perspective of the 510(k) Program” (2011);
`
`RAPS Webcast: “The 510(k) Program—Update One Year After FDA
`
`Internal Study Report” (2012);
`
`Annual Medical Devices Summit East: “The 510(k) Program One Year
`
`Later” (2012);
`
`Drug Information Association (DIA) Conference: “Update on the 510(k)
`
`Program” (2012);
`
`22nd Annual Society of Clinical Research Associates (SOCRA) Conference:
`
`“The 510(k) Process” (2013);
`
`RAPS San Francisco: “510(k) Requirements and Guidance” (2013);
`
`23rd Annual SOCRA Conference: “The 510(k) Process” (2014);
`
`American Bar Association (ABA) Webinar on FDA Medical Device Law
`
`Fundamentals: “Principles of Premarket Classification” (2014);
`
`Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) FDA Forum:
`
`“Navigating Today’s 510(k) Program” (2015);
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`Page 10
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 11 of 30
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`University of Miami Concept to Commercialization (C2C) Series:
`
`“Navigating FDA’s Premarket Pathway for Medical Devices” (2015);
`
`RAPS Workshop: “Peeling the 510(k) Onion from Fundamentals to Latest
`
`Topics” (2015);
`
`RAPS Workshop: “Peeling the 510(k) Onion from Fundamentals to Latest
`
`Trends” (2016);
`
`SOCRA Conference: “A Look at Today’s 510(k)” (2016);
`
`MedCon 2017: “510(k) Modifications: To Submit or Not Submit . . . That
`
`Is the Question!” (2017)
`
`Florida Medical Manufacturers Consortium, Inc.: “510(k) Updates: When
`
`and How to Work with FDA on Device Modifications” (2017);
`
`OCRA Conference: “Medical Devices and FDA: What, When, and How”
`
`(2017);
`
`RAPS Conference: “510(k) Regulatory Framework” (2017);
`
`RAPS European Union (EU) Conference: “Picking the Right Predicate”
`
`(2017);
`
`RAPS (EU) Conference: “When Things Go Wrong” (2018);
`
`MedCon 2018: “How Best to Interact with CDRH Premarket” (2018); and
`
`Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Meeting: “FDA CDRH Director
`
`Breakout Session” (2019).
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`Page 11
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 12 of 30
`
`•
`
`RAPS (EU) Workshop: The Basics of 510(k) and Working with FDA
`
`(2019).
`
`See also Appendix A, “Curriculum Vitae of Heather Rosecrans”; Appendix B, “Expert
`
`Witness Information for Heather Rosecrans.”
`
`II.
`
`Analysis and Opinions
`
`
`
`A.
`
`22.
`
`FDA Regulation of Medical Devices
`
`FDA is a scientific, regulatory, and public health agency. FDA’s statutory
`
`authority is derived from the FDCA. Its jurisdiction encompasses most food products
`
`(other than meat and poultry), including dietary supplements; human and animal drugs;
`
`therapeutic agents of biological origin; medical devices; radiation-emitting products for
`
`consumer, medical, and occupational use; cosmetics; animal feed; and, most recently,
`
`tobacco products.
`
`23.
`
`FDA prides itself on being a “science-based, science-led” regulatory
`
`agency. The agency has a strong regulatory and scientific staff. These resources ensure
`
`that FDA decisions are based on up-to-date science and applicable statutory and
`
`regulatory provisions.
`
`24.
`
`FDA includes six product Centers: (1) CDRH; (2) Center for Food Safety
`
`and Applied Nutrition (“CFSAN”); (3) CDER; (4) CBER; (5) Center for Veterinary
`
`Medicine (“CVM”); and (6) Center for Tobacco Products (“CTP”). These Centers
`
`review premarket applications, develop scientific and regulatory policy, work with
`
`FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) and ORA’s district offices to ensure industry
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`Page 12
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 13 of 30
`
`compliance with regulatory requirements, and proactively and reactively address issues
`
`of potential public health concern.
`
`25. CDRH is responsible for regulating firms that manufacture, repackage, re-
`
`label, and/or import medical devices sold in the United States. In addition, CDRH
`
`regulates radiation-emitting electronic products (medical and non-medical), such as
`
`lasers, x-ray systems, ultrasound equipment, microwave ovens, and color televisions.
`
`26.
`
`If a product meets the definition of “device” in the FDCA, it will be
`
`regulated by FDA as a medical device and be subject to premarket and postmarket
`
`regulatory controls. The statutory definition of a “device” is:
`
`[A]n instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance,
`
`implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article,
`
`including a component part, or accessory, which is—
`
`(1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the
`
`United States Pharmacopoeia, or any supplement to them,
`
`(2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other
`
`conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention
`
`of disease, in man or other animals, or
`
`(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body
`
`of man or other animals, and
`
`which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through
`
`chemical action within or on the body of man or other
`
`animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`Page 13
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 14 of 30
`
`for the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes.
`
`The term “device” does not include software functions
`
`excluded pursuant to section 360j(o) of this title.6
`
`27. Medical devices are classified into one of three classes: Class I, II, or III.
`
`Regulatory control increases from Class I to Class III. The device classification defines
`
`the regulatory requirements for a generic type device. Most Class I devices are exempt
`
`from the 510(k) requirements of the Act; most Class II devices require 510(k) review and
`
`a determination by FDA of substantial equivalence prior to commercial distribution in the
`
`U.S.; and Class III devices require PMA review and approval prior to commercial
`
`distribution in the U.S.7
`
`28. Class I Devices. Class I devices are generally subject only to “general
`
`controls,” because the risks are well understood and general controls are sufficient to
`
`provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.8 General controls include:
`
`510(k), banning, misbranding, adulteration, compliance with the applicable portions of
`
`the Quality System Regulation (“QSR”) for manufacturing and recordkeeping,
`
`requirements for issuing notices about repair, replacing or refunding money for devices
`
`
`6 FDCA § 201(h), 21 U.S.C. § 321(h).
`
`7 The one exception is cranial electrotheraphy stimulators. CDRH is still considering whether to call for PMA
`applications for this device type. See FDA Website, 515 Project Status, available at https://www.fda.gov/about-
`fda/cdrh-transparency/515-project-status (accessed Nov. 5, 2019).
`
`8 See 21 C.F.R. § 860.3(c)(1).
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 15 of 30
`
`presenting an unreasonable risk of substantial harm, facility registration and product
`
`listing, adverse event reporting, and labeling.9
`
`29.
`
`The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997
`
`(“FDAMA”), under Section 510(l), exempted all Class I devices from FDA’s 510(k)
`
`requirements except those that are intended for a use that is of substantial importance in
`
`preventing the impairment of human health or that present a potentially unreasonable risk
`
`of injury or illness.10 FDA “reserved” those device types defined in the exception above
`
`as requiring 510(k) submission and a determination by FDA that the device is
`
`substantially equivalent prior to commercial distribution in the U.S. FDA also has
`
`regulations on limitations to exemption from the 510(k) requirements of the Act.
`
`30.
`
`Examples of Class I devices include elastic bandages, examination gloves,
`
`non-prescription sunglasses, microbiological specimen collection and transport devices,
`
`and certain hand-held surgical instruments.
`
`31. Class II Devices. Class II devices are devices for which general controls
`
`alone are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness,
`
`but special controls can be identified to address the risks—in addition to the general
`
`controls of the FDCA. Class II devices are subject to both general and special controls
`
`and require 510(k) review (unless specifically exempted from the 510(k) requirements of
`
`the Act subject to limitations on exemption) and a determination by FDA that there is
`
`
`9 All classes of devices are subject to general controls. General controls are the baseline requirements of the FDCA
`that apply to all medical devices—Class I, II, or III.
`
`10 FDCA § 510(l), 21 U.S.C. § 360(l).
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`Page 15
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 16 of 30
`
`reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness that demonstrates the device is
`
`substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device prior to commercial
`
`distribution in the U.S.
`
`32.
`
`Special controls include performance standards, FDA guidance documents,
`
`special labeling requirements, tracking of implantable devices, clinical data, and other
`
`actions the agency deems necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
`
`effectiveness.11
`
`33.
`
`Examples of Class II devices include powered wheelchairs, bone cement,
`
`knee implants, glucose test systems, ventilators, dialysis systems, surgical drapes, and
`
`percutaneous catheters.
`
`34. Class III Devices. In addition to general controls, Class III devices are
`
`those that must receive review and approval by FDA in a PMA to provide reasonable
`
`assurance of their safety and effectiveness prior to commercial distribution in the U.S.
`
`The risks for this type of device are not well understood, and therefore special controls
`
`cannot be identified for this type of device.
`
`35.
`
`Examples of Class III devices that require a PMA are mechanical heart
`
`valves, breast implants, drug-eluting stents, bone growth stimulators, most pacemakers,
`
`intraocular lenses, extended wear contact lenses, certain in vitro diagnostics, and new
`
`devices that have been found not to be substantially equivalent to legally marketed
`
`11 See 21 C.F.R. § 860.3(c)(2).
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`Page 16
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 17 of 30
`
`devices for lack of a predicate device, a new intended use, or a new technology that raises
`
`a different type of safety and effectiveness question.
`
`B.
`
`510(k) Premarket Review and Clearance
`
`36. As addressed within the “Qualifications” section of this report, my
`
`regulatory expertise is focused on the 510(k) program. While at FDA, I played a pivotal
`
`role in the 510(k) program’s development and reform.
`
`37. More than 90 percent of medical devices fall within FDA’s 510(k)
`
`authority.12 The 510(k) premarket notification process refers to Section 510(k) of the
`
`FDCA and is used for devices that are to be reviewed by FDA for a determination of
`
`substantial equivalence to a legally marketed Class I or Class II device, unless the device
`
`type has been exempted from the 510(k) requirements of the Act. A manufacturer is
`
`required to file a 510(k) and receive an FDA determination of substantial equivalence
`
`prior to initial marketing of a device; making a change or modification to a cleared device
`
`that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device; or making a major
`
`change or modification to the intended use of its previously cleared device.13
`
`38.
`
`The FDA review requirements for a 510(k) are to first determine that there
`
`is a predicate device,14 that the new device has the same intended use, same technology,
`
`
`12 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and the Environment,
`Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Medical Devices: FDA's 510(k) Operations Could
`Be Improved at 2 (Aug. 1988), available at http://archive.gao.gov/d16t6/136821.pdf (accessed Nov. 5, 2019).
`
`13 21 C.F.R. § 807.81.
`
`14 Any legally U.S. marketed device, which does not require a PMA, may be used as a predicate. This includes: a
`device that has been cleared through the 510(k) process; a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`Page 17
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 18 of 30
`
`or a different technology that does not raise a new type of safety and effectiveness
`
`question as compared to the predicate, and lastly that performance data demonstrate that
`
`the new device is at least as safe and effective as the predicate.15
`
`39. A device that requires 510(k) review and clearance may not be marketed
`
`until the applicant receives an “order” from FDA, which states that the new device has
`
`been determined to be substantially equivalent (“SE”), that is at least as safe and effective
`
`as the legally marketed predicate device.
`
`40.
`
`Substantial Equivalence. For a new device to be determined to be
`
`“substantially equivalent” by FDA to one or more legally marketed predicate devices, it
`
`must have the same intended use as a predicate(s) and either the same technological
`
`characteristics as the predicate device or different technological characteristics, but the
`
`information submitted contains information that demonstrates that the device is as safe
`
`and effective as the predicate and does not raise different questions of safety and
`
`effectiveness than the predicate.16 Performance data is required to demonstrate that the
`
`new device is at least as safe and effective as the predicate (unless it is identical to the
`
`predicate, then a comparison of specifications is adequate).17 The majority of 510(k)s
`
`
`that does not require PMA (a preamendment device); a device that was on the U.S. market after May 28, 1976 as a
`Class III device (Premarket Approval); later downclassified to Class II or I; a 510(k) exempt device; or a device type
`that has been classified through the de novo petition process.
`
`15 See 21 C.F.R. § 807.81(a)(3).
`
`16 See FDCA § 513(i), 21 U.S.C. § 360c(i).
`
`17 See 21 C.F.R. § 807.92(b).
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`Page 18
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 19 of 30
`
`received by FDA for review have some differences in the indication for use and/or
`
`technological characteristics when compared to the predicate.
`
`41. Any device legally marketed in the U.S. that does not require a PMA may
`
`be used as a predicate. Legally marketed predicates include: a device that has been
`
`cleared through the 510(k) process; a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28,
`
`1976 (a preamendment device) and for which FDA has not called for PMAs; a device
`
`that was originally on the U.S. market as a Class III device (PMA) and later
`
`downclassified to Class II or I; a device that has been classified through the de novo
`
`petition process into Class I or Class II; or a 510(k)-exempt device.
`
`42.
`
`The content of a 510(k) basically includes: the device name and class; an
`
`establishment registration number (if one has been received); an “Indication for Use
`
`Statement”; directions for use; photographs or engineering drawings, where applicable; a
`
`510(k) summary or 510(k) statement; proposed labeling; substantial equivalence
`
`comparison with the predicate; supporting performance data (bench, animal, and/or
`
`clinical); and any additional information regarding the device requested by the
`
`Commissioner that is necessary to make a finding as to whether or not the device is
`
`substantially equivalent to a predicate device.18
`
`43.
`
`In addition to the above-mentioned requirements, 510(k) submitters must
`
`include a statement that all data and information submitted are truthful and accurate and
`
`
`18 21 C.F.R. § 807.87; see also Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Refuse to Accept Policy for 510(k)s (Sept.
`2019), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/83888/download (accessed Nov. 5, 2019).
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`Page 19
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 20 of 30
`
`that no material fact has been omitted.19 The truthful and accurate statement carries
`
`significant legal implications, which may result in judicial action should FDA determine
`
`that false information was provided or material facts were omitted.
`
`44.
`
`Performance Data Requirements. It is a common misperception that
`
`510(k)s do not contain performance data. The manufacturer of a device that has the
`
`identical indications for use and the identical technological characteristics as a predicate
`
`device need only submit descriptive data, including side-by-side comparisons of the new
`
`device and the legally marketed device with which it is compared. This is a very unusual
`
`type of 510(k) for FDA to receive for review.
`
`45.
`
`If there are any differences in the indications for use between a new device
`
`and a predicate and/or there are any different technological characteristics, the
`
`submission will need to contain the descriptive characteristics as well as performance
`
`data, including bench, animal, and/or clinical data for FDA to review to determine if the
`
`new device can be found substantially equivalent to the predicate device or not.20
`
`46. Labeling Requirements. FDA regulations require a manufacturer to
`
`submit any “additional information regarding the device requested by [FDA] that is
`
`necessary for the [FDA] to make a finding as to whether or not the device is substantially
`
`19 Id. § 807.87(k).
`
`
`
`20 See Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial
`Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)] at 23 (July 28, 2014), available at
`https://www.fda.gov/media/82395/download (accessed Nov. 5, 2019).
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`Page 20
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2205
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Document 110 Filed 11/15/19 Page 21 of 30
`
`equivalent.”21 This regulation thus gives the agency the ability to request whatever data
`
`is needed in co

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket