直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

FDA Provides Guidance on Classifying Medical Products

November 29, 2017

FDA Flash! Blog

By Shana K. Cyr, Ph.D.; Kathleen A. Daley

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued final guidance on the classification of medical products. FDA, Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, Classification of Products as Drugs and Devices and Additional Product Classification Issues (Sept. 2017). With the Guidance, FDA seeks to provide additional clarity and predictability for the medical product industry. (Id.at 2.)

Formal Classifications Can Be Obtained with Requests for Classification

To obtain a formal classification for a product as a drug, device, biological product, or combination product, medical product sponsors can submit a Request for Designation to FDA’s Office of Combination Products. (Id. at 3.) Requests should include a recommended classification and bases for the recommendation. (Id.) The Office will respond to the Request in writing within sixty days; if not, the recommended classification becomes final. (Id. at 3-4.)

If FDA does not adopt the recommended classification, the sponsor can request reconsideration. (Id. at 4 n.8.) The sponsor can also submit a new Request for Designation if it develops or becomes aware of new information relevant to the product’s classification. (Id.) FDA can modify final classifications only with the sponsor’s written consent or for public health reasons based on scientific evidence. (Id. at 4.)

FDA Looks to Statutory Definitions When Classifying Products

All FDA-regulated medical products qualify as "drugs" under the statutory definition. (Id. at 5.) If a product also meets the definition of "biological product" but not "device," FDA will generally classify the product as a biological product. (Id. at 11.) If a product meets the definitions of "drug" and "device," but not "biological product," FDA will generally classify the product as a device unless it falls within a special category. (Id. at 12.) If a product meets all three definitions, its classification is less clear and FDA recommends that sponsors of such products contact the Office of Combination Products about classification. (Id.)

FDA Provides Clarity on the Definition of "Device"

The definition of "device" requires, inter alia, that the product (1) be an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article; and (2) have primary intended purposes that are not achieved through chemical action within or on the body. (Id. at 5.)

A. "Other Similar or Related Article"
The Guidance indicates that some products in liquid, semi-liquid, gel, gas, or powder form qualify as "other similar or related articles." (Id. at 6.) For example, FDA considers gels or powders put on the skin as a barrier, gases used as space fillers, and liquids used to clean either surgical instruments or contact lenses as "other similar or related articles." (Id.)

B. "Chemical Action Within or on the Body"
The Guidance indicates that some products involving chemical action qualify as devices. (Id. at 6-7.) Chemical action occurs when a product interacts at the molecular level with bodily components (e.g., cells or tissues) to mediate a bodily response, or with foreign entities to alter the entities’ interactions with the body. (Id.) Interaction at the molecular level includes chemical reaction and intermolecular forces, not a mere exchange of non-chemical energy, such as electromagnetic or thermal energy. (Id. at 7 n.12.)

Products involving chemical action can qualify as devices if the chemical action does not achieve the products’ primary intended purposes. (Id. at 7.) For example, a hip joint replacement implant that restores movement as its primary intended purpose is a device, even if the implant also elicits a foreign body response through chemical action. (Id.) An absorbable suture that rejoins tissue as its primary intended purpose is a device, even if the body resorbs the suture through chemical action. (Id.)

Products involving chemical action can also qualify as devices if the chemical action is not within or on the body. (Id.) For example, an antimicrobial agent used to clean a surgical instrument before use does not involve chemical action within or on the body. (Id. at 8.) FDA has also determined that the chemical action in a kidney hemodialysis machine and the chemical action in a transport solution for preserving donor organs do not occur within or on the body. (Id.)

Conclusion

FDA’s Guidance provides some clarity and useful examples as to when a product is classified as a drug or device. Medical product sponsors should consider the Guidance and related statutes and regulations early in product development, for example, to ensure that they are pursuing a workable classification and to better direct their scientific and regulatory efforts towards supporting a desired classification.

Tags

Food and Drug Administration (FDA), combination product

Related Industries

Chemical

Energy

Life Sciences

Pharmaceutical

Biologics

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Kathleen A. Daley
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4098
Email

Originally printed in FDA FLash! Blog on November 29, 2017. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Webinar

PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations

August 26, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

A Year of Change for Post-Grant Patent Challenges: Key PTAB and CRU Developments, and Strategic Implications

August 19, 2026

Webinar

Articles

Blaker v. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading of the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act in California State Court

July 29, 2026

IP Updates

Too Concrete to Fail: Ceiva’s Guidance on the Use of Sufficiently Concrete Structures to Overcome Section 101 Rejections

July 28, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: June 2026

July 28, 2026

Articles

Highlights and Implications of the UK Corporate Plan for the UKIPO

July 17, 2026

Articles

This Article Was Written Entirely by AI — Welcome to Synthetic Patent Litigation

July/August 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP