FDA Outlines 'Anticipated Details' of New Oversight Approach for Laboratory Developed Tests
22 September 2014
Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) are tests that are intended for clinical use and designed, manufactured and used within a single laboratory. On July 31, 2014, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided advance notice to Congress (as required by statute) of its intent to issue draft guidance for the regulatory oversight of LDTs, after its longstanding approach of “enforcement discretion” for these tests.
This article, written by a team of Foley lawyers from the health care, intellectual property, and FDA practices, originally was published in the BNA Medical Devices Law & Industry Report, and discusses the FDA’s new and significantly different approach to the oversight of LDTs. Continue reading the full article.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
12 September 2024
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Cybersecurity in the Age of Industry 4.0 – Part 1
As the manufacturing sector continues to embrace the hyper-connected era of Smart Manufacturing, known as Industry 4.0, more and more organizations are integrating advanced automation, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and other cutting-edge innovations into their operations.
11 September 2024
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
What Every Multinational Company Should Know About …“Made in USA” Labeling Requirements
Many Americans value domestically made goods. A “Made in USA” label can hold special meaning for these consumers, as it serves as a symbol of patriotism, a sign of quality craftsmanship, and a show of solidarity with local industries, among other things.
10 September 2024
IP Litigation Current
Alice Patent Eligibility Analysis Divergence Before USPTO and District Court
The Mayo/Alice framework for determining subject matter eligibility of patents under 35 U.S.C. §101 has long since antagonized both patent prosecutors and litigators alike, causing significant uncertainty in the realm of software-based technology and innovation.