Blogs

MedTech

De Novo classification process: a beginner's guide

By

Bethaney Lentz

December 23, 2021

4 min read

This article is an excerpt from The beginner's guide to the FDA De Novo classification process ebook.

Contents

Introduction

Congratulations, you have successfully developed a new medical device! Now you need to take it to market. Normally in the United States this would mean completing a 510(k) submission. However, the 510(k) relies on “substantial equivalence”—a comparison to a similar device already on the market (also called a predicate device) to assess the risk profile of the new device. What if your device is totally new, and there isn’t a similar device to compare it to? Enter the FDA De Novo process. The De Novo process provides a pathway to market for novel devices with a low to medium risk profile.

What does De Novo mean?

According to the Merriman-Webster dictionary, de novo is a Latin word meaning “as if for the first time; or anew.” Perfectly fitting that the FDA uses this term “De Novo” to describe market approval requests for new medical devices or technology where there is no comparable predicate device on the market.

Chatper 1: What is an FDA De Novo request?

The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1996 provided the FDA with the authority to create the De Novo Classification Process. It's a process that uses a risk-based strategy for a new, novel kind of medical device, in vitro diagnostic, or medical software solution whose type has previously not been identified and/or classified. It’s a process by which a novel medical device can be classified as a Class I or Class II device, instead of being automatically classified as Class III, which may not be appropriate. Before the implementation of the De Novo process in 1997, all the “not substantially equivalent” (NSE) products were required to be initially classified as a Class III device. But for a lot of devices, this risk class didn’t really make sense. The De Novo process provides a pathway for more accurate classifications of novel, lower-risk devices.

October, 2021, the FDA released a final guidance document "De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)" to provide guidance to the requester (also known as the manufacturer) and the FDA on the process for the submission and review of a De Novo Classification Request under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). This process provides a pathway to an initial Class I or Class II risk classification for medical devices for which general controls or general and special controls, provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but for which there is no legally marketed predicate device. This guidance document replaced the "New Section 513(f)(2) – Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation, Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff" document, dated February 19, 1998.

Consistent with the final rule, the FDA updated the guidance documents below to provide recommendations for submitting De Novo requests, as well as criteria and procedures for accepting, withdrawing, reviewing, and making decisions on De Novo requests, effective January 3, 2022.

The 510(k) and the De Novo processes are similar in that they are both pathways to market for medical devices with low to moderate risk, which is Class I and Class II. The biggest difference between the two is that the 510(k) heavily relies on the concept of "substantial equivalence" to an existing medical device. You must prove this to get the clearance of your 510(k) submission. In the De Novo process, there isn’t a product currently on the market that is “substantially equivalent” to yours, so it’s like starting with a clean slate. For more on the 510(k) process, see our Beginner’s Guide to the 510(k) ebook.

A result of the De Novo process to be aware of is that a successful submission will lead to a new predicate device type that someone else can reference to bring their product to market through the 510(k) process. You’ve done all the work, so now it’s available for anyone to use to provide "substantial equivalence".

De Novo history/timeline

1997 Congress enacted a De Novo classification process to help limit the unnecessary use of FDA and industry resources on devices for which general controls (or general and special controls) would provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness because a predicate device could not be identified.
1998 Initial De Novo Guidance Document was released.
2012 Congress simplified the De Novo Guidance Document into a 2-step process:
1. The requestor may submit a De Novo request directly.
2. The FDA would then decide whether to classify the device from Class III to Class II or Class I for the new classification and regulation.
2014 A draft was created of the De Novo Guidance Document to propose policy and procedures to implement the changes to the De Novo program from FDASIA (The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act) of 2012..
2016 Congress further simplified the De Novo process by not requiring a 30-day submission turnaround after receiving an NSE (non-substantially equivalent) determination.
2017 The final Guidance (De Novo Program Guidance) Recommendations was issued.
2018 The FDA proposed a new rule to implement a De Novo Classification Process and define the scope of regulatory procedures when classifying and reclassifying medical devices.
2019 The final De Novo Program Guidance document was made public in September.
2021 The FDA issued a final ruling on the De Novo classification rule in October for implementing a classification process.

Preparing a De Novo request

1. Do your research! Be sure to complete all the necessary research prior to your submission. You want to be sure that your device is not substantially equivalent to an existing device. Resources to review include:

  • The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)
  • U.S. FDA Device Classification Database
  • Device Classification Under Section 513(f)(2)(De Novo)

2. A De Novo request can be submitted with or without a preceding 510(k). There are two options for when you can submit a De Novo request:

Option A: After receiving a not substantially equivalent (NSE) determination (that is, no predicate, new intended use, or different technological characteristics that raise different questions of safety and effectiveness) in response to a 510(k) submission.

Option B: If you’ve determined, after extensive research, that there is no legally marketed device on which to base a determination of substantial equivalence.

3. Be sure all fees are paid to the FDA in advance of submitting a De Novo request. The FDA’s fiscal year begins in October and runs through the following September. Fees have increased each year since they were introduced, but the FDA’s percentage of reviews completed within the 150-day window has increased as well.

Fiscal year De Novo requests received % of requests completed in 150 days User fee Small business fee
2018 56 50% $93,229 $23,307
2019 61 55% $96,644 $24,161
2020 69 60% $102,299 $25,575
2021 63 65% $109,697 $27,424
2022 70% $112,457 $28,114

A business that is qualified and certified as a “small business” is eligible for a substantial reduction in most of the FDA user fees, including De Novo. The CDRH is responsible for the Small Business Program that determines whether a business is qualified. 

Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA) guidance documents can provide more detailed information about all FDA user fees.

4. The initial request process serves only to determine if the De Novo request is administratively acceptable based upon the Acceptance Checklist. The initial acceptance is followed by substantive review which will determine the final risk classification of your device.

5. A Pre-Submission (Pre-Sub) is a formal written request for feedback from the FDA that is provided in formal written form, and then followed by a meeting. Although a Pre-Sub is not required prior to a De Novo request, it can be extremely helpful to receive early feedback, especially for devices that have not previously been reviewed under a 510(k). If you think you would like to submit a pre-sub first, there are suggested guidelines for submission you should consider:

  • Describe your rationale for a Class I or Class II classification for your device.
  • Provide the search results of FDA public databases and other resources used to determine that no legally marketed device and no classification for the same device type exists.
  • Provide a list of regulations and/or product codes that may be relevant.
  • Provide a rationale for why the subject device does not fit within and/or is different from any identified classification regulations, based on available information.
  • Identify each health risk associated with the device and the reason for each risk.
  • Briefly describe any ongoing and/or planned protocols/studies that need to be completed in order to collect the necessary data to establish the device’s risk profile.
  • Provide information regarding the safety and effectiveness of the device. Cite the types of valid scientific evidence you anticipate providing in your De Novo request, including types of data/studies relating to the device’s safety and effectiveness.
  • Briefly describe any ongoing and/or planned protocols/studies that need to be completed to collect the necessary safety and effectiveness data.
  • Provide protocols for non-clinical and clinical studies (if applicable), including how they will address the risks you anticipate and targeted performance levels that will demonstrate that general controls or general and special controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
  • Share any proposed mitigation measure(s)/control(s) for each risk, based on the best available information at the time of the submission. Highlight which mitigations are general controls and which are special controls and provide details on each.
  • Include any other risks that may be applicable, in addition to those identified in the Pre-Sub, given the indications for use for the device.
  • If applicable, provide any controls that should be considered to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the device.
  • Provide any non-clinical study protocols that are sufficient to allow the collection of data from which conclusions about device safety and/or effectiveness can be drawn. These protocols should address whether the identified level of concern is the appropriate level of concern for the device software, and if any additional biocompatibility and/or sterility testing is required.
  • If clinical data is needed, provide information to show that the proposed study design and selected control groups are appropriate?

6. The FDA will attempt to review the De Novo request submission within 15 calendar days of receipt of the request to make a determination that the submission is declined or accepted for review. If they are unable to complete the review within the 15 days, your submission will automatically move to “accepted for review” status. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/de-novo-classification-process-evaluation-automatic-class-iii-designation

7. There are times when the FDA will refund your application fee. They have created a guidance document “User Fees and Refunds for De Novo Classification Requests” for the purpose of identifying:

  1. the types of De Novo requests subject to user fees
  2. exceptions to user fees
  3. the actions that may result in refunds of user fees that have been paid

When is a De Novo request subject to a user fee?

De Novo request submission type De Novo fee required
Original De Novo request Yes
Additional information for a De Novo request that has not yet been accepted No
Additional information for a pending De Novo request No
De Novo request intended solely for pediatric population No
De Novo request for a device for which the previous De Novo request was declined Yes

When will the FDA refund a De Novo user fee?

FDA determination or submitter action FDA refund?
I qualify for a fee exception provided by section 738(a)(2)(B)(v) of the FD&C act. Yes
FDA declines my De Novo request. No
I withdraw my De Novo request after acceptance for review. No
FDA considers my De Novo request to be withdrawn after acceptance for review. No
I fail to submit a valid eCopy before my original De Novo request is accepted for review. Yes, upon request
I fail to submit a valid eCopy for a De Novo amendment or supplement. No
FDA determines my submission does not meet the acceptance criteria during review. Yes, upon request

What fee must be paid for a new device submission following a De Novo “decline” determination?

Submission type Is a fee required?
New De Novo request. Yes. You must pay the applicable fee for a De Novo request.
510(k) Yes. You must pay the applicable fee for a 510(k).
Reclassification petition No
PMA Yes. You must pay the applicable fee for a PMA.
HDE No

Chatper 2: Contents of a De Novo request

To continue reading this eBook including a detailed walk-through of all the Traditional 510(k) components, submission requirements and timelines, and an overview of the other 510(k) forms including the Abbreviated 510(k) and the Special 510(k), please register to download the full version.

Similar posts

How Smith & Nephew Repositioned Regulatory as a Strategic Commercial Partner

MedTech

RIM

How Smith & Nephew Repositioned Regulatory as a Strategic Commercial Partner

By

Caroline La

May 28, 2026

4 min read

Smith & Nephew is a global medical device manufacturerwith a broad portfolio spanning orthopedics, sports medicine, and woundmanagement, sold and registered across markets worldwide. Before Rimsys,regulatory data was scattered across spreadsheets, shared drives, anddisconnected systems.

When Smith & Nephew selected Rimsys, they deployed itenterprise-wide from day one. Executive reporting moved from manual fire drillsto real-time dashboards. Change impact assessments became faster and moreconsistent. The regulatory team made the shift from reactive compliancefunction to strategic partner to the business.

The Challenge

Regulatory data at Smith & Nephew lived in multiplespreadsheets, shared drives, SharePoint sites, emails, and disconnectedsystems. Without a centralized record, the team could not reliably trackregistration timelines, measure on-time submissions, assess change impacts, orunderstand the downstream impact of product changes across markets. Preparingexecutive reporting meant manually assembling data from multiple sources, aprocess that consumed time and introduced risk each time.

The Solution

Smith & Nephew selected Rimsys for its configurable, notcustomized, platform: an intuitive user interface, centralized submissionmanagement, robust metrics, change assessment capabilities, and UDI supportwith machine-to-machine transmission. Rimsys’ interconnected modulearchitecture linked products, registrations, projects, change assessments, andUDI in a centralized location.

Rather than piloting in one business unit, Smith &Nephew deployed Rimsys across the entire regulatory organization from day one.The decision was deliberate: a partial deployment would have preserved thefragmentation. Enterprise-wide adoption established consistent metrics,standardized processes, and a single source of truth from the start.

The Results

Executive and board reporting, previously built from manualdata pulls, now flows directly from Rimsys in real time. What had been adisruptive, recurring effort is now a routine view. Leadership has thevisibility to make faster, more confident decisions, and the regulatory team isno longer pulled into reporting fire drills.

Change management has also been transformed. Direct linkagebetween products, registrations, and projects means impact assessments arefaster and less dependent on individual knowledge. UDI operations havesimilarly improved: machine-to-machine transmission has reduced manual uploadsand centralized DI record visibility supports global UDI requirements.

The most significant shift is strategic. With centralizedregulatory intelligence and real-time data, Smith & Nephew’s regulatoryteam now actively supports commercial planning: informing budget cycles,guiding renewal and launch sequencing, and advising on regulatory pathways toaccelerate market entry. Regulatory is no longer a downstream compliancefunction. It is a business partner.

Smith & Nephew now runs four modules across its RIM operation:

  • Registrations— Centralized license tracking across 250 countries and 30+ business units
  • Change Assessments— Direct product-registration linkage for faster, consistent impact assessments
  • Executive Reports— Real-time dashboards replacing manual data pulls and board reporting fire drills
  • UDI— Machine-to-machine transmission reducing manual uploads across global markets

Take this to your team

If you’re evaluating how to modernize RIM operations at scale, the Smith & Nephew case study is a practical reference to share internally. It covers the full implementation story, module breakdown, and results data in a format built for stakeholder conversations.

Download the Case Study

MedTech

RIM

How Philips Scaled Active Product Registrations More Than 20x

By

Caroline La

May 21, 2026

4 min read

Philips Healthcare operates one of the largest regulatory portfolios in global MedTech: products registered across 250 countries, with a footprint that grows with every acquisition. Before Rimsys, that complexity was managed through email and spreadsheets. Submission packages moved through inboxes with no audit trail, no performance data, and no reliable view of where products were authorized to ship.

Philips selected Rimsys in 2022 as the enterprise RIM platform to bring regulatory order to that complexity. Since go-live, active product registrations have scaled more than 20x, user adoption has doubled in the last six months, and the regulatory affairs function now operates from a single source of truth spanning the entire enterprise.

The Challenge

Without structured data, Philips could not measure regulatory performance, track license expiration across the portfolio, or identify where submission work was stalling. Every acquisition made it worse: incoming business units arrived with their own workflows and systems, absorbing more fragmentation rather than resolving it.

The Solution

Philips evaluated multiple platforms against requirements built with both market-facing and business regulatory affairs teams. Rimsys won on two dimensions: an interface that made complex product and registration data immediately visible, and more enterprise-ready features than competing platforms at the right price point.

Philips went live with Rimsys Registrations and Submissions modules in July 2022. The team deployed platform experts for train-the-trainer sessions and launched regular drop-in sessions where users could ask questions and surface issues. Standing up a dedicated Regulatory Operations team focused exclusively on rest-of-world registration accelerated adoption further.

When an early business unit pushed back on workflow efficiency, Philips and Rimsys worked through it together. A hands-on process walkthrough identified exactly what needed to change, a resolution plan was shared, and that transparency and collaboration became the foundation for sustained user buy-in across the enterprise.

The Results

Since go-live, Philips has scaled active product registrations more than 20x, with further growth already underway. What started as a single deployment now spans 30+ business units across 250 countries, with Rimsys serving as the single source of truth for regulatory data across the enterprise, including businesses acquired since implementation.

For the first time, Philips can measure its own regulatory performance. KPIs flow directly from the platform, giving leadership real-time visibility into registration health. When anomalies surface, they drive data correction and user training, closing gaps that previously went undetected until they affected revenue.

Now with Rimsys AI-assisted Submissions and Regulatory Intelligence now in use, Philips expects to accelerate further: reducing administrative burden so skilled regulatory professionals can focus on strategy.

Philips now runs four modules across its RIM operation:

  • Registrations— Centralized license tracking across 250 countries and 30+ business units
  • Submissions— AI-assisted submission workflows replacing email-based package management
  • Intelligence— Real-time KPI dashboards giving leadership visibility into registration health
  • Standards— Essential Principles and standards tracking aligned to global market requirements

Take this to your team

If you’re evaluating how to modernize RIM operations at scale, the Philips Healthcare case study is a practical reference to share internally. It covers the full implementation story, module breakdown, and results data in a format built for stakeholder conversations.

Download the Case Study

AI

RIM

UDI

EUDAMED

MedTech

What RAPS Euro Convergence 2026 Told Us About the Future of MedTech Regulation

By

Caroline La

May 12, 2026

4 min read

Last week, the MedTech regulatory community gathered in Lisbon for RAPS Euro Convergence 2026: nearly 100 sessions, hundreds of professionals, and one overriding theme: transformation.The European regulatory landscape is shifting faster than it has in two decades, and the pressure is on every RA team to keep pace.

We were there. And here is what we took away.

The Dominant Signal: Change Is Accelerating

For MedTech manufacturers, the immediate reality is demanding. MDR 2.0 is advancing. The EU AI Act is creating new compliance obligations for software-enabled devices. EUDAMED continues to mature. And teams are being asked to absorb all of this while still meeting existing registration and renewal deadlines.

The practical implication is clear: RA functions that rely on manual tracking, disconnected spreadsheets, and tribal knowledge are being outrun by the pace of change. Across the industry, teams are moving from talking about AI to actively experimenting with it, using it to handle the volume and complexity that manual processes simply cannot absorb. The teams emerging as strategic forces are the ones who have connected, real-time regulatory infrastructure and are putting AI to work within it.

AI Is No Longer Optional Thinking

The conversation at Euro Convergence made one thing clear: AI has moved from future-state to present-tense. Regulatory professionals were encouraged to embrace AI while maintainingaccountability for the outcome and challenging the algorithms.

" Our role is to make sure that the AI does the right interpretations appropriate to our products, to our business."

— João Martins, Director of Regulatory Affairs at Abbott at RAPS Euro Convergence 2026 Opening Plenary

That framing resonates deeply with how we have built AI into Rimsys. The goal was never to replace regulatory judgment; it is to amplify it. Rimsys AI is domain-specific, built on the regulatory data structures and logic that reflect real-world requirements, country-specific nuances, and product context. It proposes, analyzes, and alerts. Your team reviews, approves, and decides.

For teams that are ready to accelerate, Rimsys AI accelerates regulatory intelligence monitoring and submission authoring, removing the repetitive, detail-heavy work so skilled professionals can focus on strategy, market expansion, and the higher-order decisions that increasingly complex regulations demand.

"As future regulators, we will need to be scientifically strong, comfortable with complexity, open to innovation, and also be able to work in increasingly complex environments."

— Rui Santos Ivo, President of Portugal's National Authority of Medicines and Health Products (INFARMED) and chair of the EMA management board, RAPS Euro Convergence 2026 Opening Plenary

MDR 2.0: Reform With Guardrails

A panel of experts representing regulators, industry, and notified bodies gave their views on the proposed revision of the EU Medical Device Regulation at the conference. While their sentiments were largely supportive, notified body representatives urged the European Commission to maintain proactive surveillance of devices to protect patients.

The discussion acknowledged the complexity of balancing reform with patient safety. Simplification and innovation go hand in hand, though if it is overly complicated or overly simplified, it becomes difficult to innovate. Structured dialogues in MDR/IVDR will provide transparency and predictability for manufacturers, especially in early product development.

Regulatory Workflows Cannot Be an Afterthought

A recurring observation across sessions was that MDR 2.0, EUDAMED, and the EU AI Act are only as effective as the operational workflows behind them. Structured dialogues, risk-proportionate pathways, and submissions all require teams to move quickly with accurate, up-to-date product data. That is simply not possible when that data lives across email threads, spreadsheets, and disconnected systems.

The workflows that came up most in Lisbon (change control, renewals, new product introductions, and registration management) are exactly the areas where manual processes create the most risk. A missed renewal. A design change that triggers 40 country-level impact assessments with no system to coordinate them. A registration record that no one has updated since the last audit.

Rimsys keeps these workflows connected and proactive. Renewal expiration reminders fire before deadlines become a risk. Change control impact surveys are configurable to your SOPs, so teams can assign tasks and coordinate work across regions without relying on someone to manually track progress. New product introductions move faster because previous submission content can be reused across markets. Target market data, registration history, and approval status are already centralized, so teams are building on existing work rather than starting from scratcheach time.

The result is regulatory operations that reduce time to market by weeks to months, not add to it. Access information in seconds rather than hours. Regulatory release authorization in minutes rather than weeks. More than 90% reduction in regional regulatory reporting time. These are not projections. They are outcomes reported by Rimsys customers operating in exactly the kind of complex, multi-market environments that dominated the conversation in Lisbon.

The Regulatory Professional Is Evolving

Perhaps the most striking thread across sessions was the evolution of the RA function itself. Regulatory work was once seen mainly in terms of compliance procedures and submissions. Today, the profession is much broader than that.

This evolution is exactly the transition Rimsys is designed to support. When regulatory data is centralized, connected, and visible in real time, RA teams stop spending their days chasing down registration status and start contributing to commercial strategy: market expansion decisions, launch sequencing, change control planning, and executive-level risk communication.

The heart of regulatory operations is not a filing cabinet. It is a living, connected system that elevates the entire function.

What It All Points To

RAPS Euro Convergence 2026 made one thing clear: the organizations that will thrive are those who have invested in regulatory infrastructure that can absorb change without breaking. Rimsys is the platform built for exactly this moment: enterprise-grade, intuitive enough for global teams to actually use, and trusted by 6 of the top 12 global MedTech manufacturers worldwide.

Book a conversation with our team

I agree to the privacy policy including to Rimsys using my contact details to contact me for marketing purposes.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Hand holding smartphone showing email app with 12 unread messages notification.