Announcing AI-Native Market Access Product for Regulated Products

Learn More

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

AI

From Regulatory Knowledge to Better Market Decisions: A Conversation with Steve Gens and James Gianoutsos

October 1, 2026

4 min read

AI is moving quickly from experimentation to implementation across life sciences. For regulatory teams, that raises a bigger question than where AI can automate a task:

How can organizations use AI to make better decisions while maintaining the traceability, expert oversight, and confidence regulatory work demands?

That was a central theme when James Gianoutsos, Founder and CEO of Rimsys, joined Steve Gens, Founder and Managing Partner of Gens & Associates, on the Regulatory Executive Podcast.

Their conversation explored the changing role of regulatory intelligence, the introduction of Rimsys Market Access, the importance of transparency in regulatory AI, and what these changes could mean for regulatory teams.

Regulatory knowledge has been difficult and costly to scale

For global medtech organizations, regulatory knowledge has traditionally been highly dependent on people.

A company may have specialists responsible for particular countries or regions, along with local representatives, distributors, consultants, and other experts. Those people develop deep knowledge of local regulations, pathways, and expectations.

The problem is that the knowledge often remains distributed across the organization. And maintaining that market-by-market expertise can become expensive as a company expands its portfolio and geographic footprint.

As James described during the podcast, large manufacturers may rely on dozens or even hundreds of internal employees, third-party distributors, local representatives, and other specialists to understand what it takes to bring products into different markets. Smaller organizations may rely more heavily on outside consultants and partners. Either way, the model can be costly and difficult to scale. 

But the cost isn't limited to what companies spend on expertise.

Steve described the workflow as a series of “start, stop” cycles: ask a local expert, verify whether the regulation is current, gather more information, and repeat. Each cycle consumes regulatory capacity and extends the time it takes to give the business a confident answer.

That creates another potentially more consequential expense: the cost of waiting.

When it takes months to understand what entering a market will require, commercial and product teams have less visibility into when revenue might begin, what resources will be needed, or whether the opportunity is worth pursuing. Regulatory teams spend valuable capacity assembling and validating information rather than applying their expertise to more strategic work.

Ultimately, scaling regulatory knowledge isn't simply an efficiency problem. It affects how quickly and confidently the business can decide where to invest.

The bigger question: Should we enter this market?

That challenge is central to Rimsys Market Access.

Most market-entry research begins with questions such as: How is the product classified? What's the regulatory pathway? What are the requirements?

Those questions establish whether a company can enter a market. But they don't necessarily tell the business whether it should.

Market Access is designed to help regulatory and commercial teams develop an earlier view of what market entry could involve, including classification, regulatory pathway, timeline, cost considerations, requirements and potential gaps. 

For commercial and product leaders, that provides greater predictability before committing budget and resources.

For regulatory leaders, it means starting with a structured plan rather than assembling every market assessment from scratch.

Moving regulatory knowledge from individuals into a shared system

During the conversation, James described one of AI's most significant opportunities as moving knowledge that has historically lived in people's heads into software.

The goal isn't to eliminate regulatory expertise. It's to make that expertise more scalable.

Market Access works from a curated regulatory corpus, allowing market-specific knowledge to be applied across workflows without requiring every initial question to go through the individual who happens to know that jurisdiction. Outputs are designed to trace back to the underlying regulation, guidance, or law. 

That can also change where regulatory professionals spend their time. Rather than focusing as heavily on finding information and assembling initial assessments, they can focus on reviewing the evidence, identifying gaps, applying judgment, and advising the business.

Steve described the concept as a subject-matter-expert assistant. James called it a workforce multiplier. 

Trust requires opening the regulatory AI “black box”

Speed isn't enough when the information is being used to inform regulatory decisions.

James and Steve returned repeatedly to the importance of knowing where an AI-generated answer comes from. As Steve summarized it during the discussion, transparency builds trust.

Market Access is designed around that principle. Its outputs are grounded in a curated regulatory corpus and traceable to the specific regulations, guidance, or laws supporting them. That gives regulatory professionals the ability to verify an answer rather than simply accept it. 

Human judgment remains essential as well. Market Access provides an upfront assessment, not a guarantee of a regulatory outcome. Reviewer interpretation and other factors can still affect what happens during the regulatory process.

The objective isn't to make uncertainty disappear. It's to make what is known, what the sources say, and where uncertainty remains much easier to see.

Connecting the market decision to execution

The discussion also pointed to a broader evolution in regulatory technology: moving from systems that primarily store regulatory information toward systems that help teams act on it.

That's where Market Access and Rimsys RIM play distinct but complementary roles.

Market Access is the planning layer. It helps teams determine whether, when, and how to enter a market.

Rimsys RIM is the execution layer. It manages the registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, and ongoing regulatory work required to act on that plan. 

Together, they create a path from the initial market decision through regulatory execution rather than leaving planning and execution disconnected.

A new role for AI in regulatory work

One of the most interesting themes from Steve and James's conversation was that AI's impact may ultimately be less about replacing individual tasks and more about expanding what regulatory teams can accomplish.

Better access to market-specific knowledge can help professionals work across more markets, spend less time gathering information, and devote more capacity to the judgment and strategic work that requires their expertise.

The technology is changing quickly, but the fundamentals of regulatory work remain: reliable information, domain expertise, transparency, and human judgment.

The opportunity is to apply those fundamentals at greater scale while giving the business a clearer answer to the question that comes before execution:

Not simply, “Can we enter this market?”

But, “Should we?”

Listen to the full conversation

Hear the complete discussion between Steve Gens, Founder and Managing Partner of Gens & Associates, and James Gianoutsos, Founder and CEO of Rimsys, on the Regulatory Executive Podcast for more on regulatory AI, market-entry planning, transparency, and the changing role of regulatory teams.

‍

AI

How Market Access Builds Trust in Regulatory Intelligence

By

Bethaney Lentz

September 18, 2026

4 min read

Why source traceability, regulatory specificity, and human judgment matter when AI informs a market-entry decision.

Regulatory professionals are not short on AI options. General-purpose tools can answer questions quickly and often sound convincing. But in medtech, a convincing answer is not the same thing as a decision you can defend.

That distinction matters most before a company commits to a new market. Teams need to understand how a product is classified, which pathway applies, how long entry may take, what it may cost, where the important gaps are, and what uncertainty still remains. Commercial leaders need that visibility to decide whether the opportunity is worth pursuing. Regulatory leaders need to know that the assessment is grounded in sources they can verify.

That is the trust standard behind Rimsys Market Access. It is not simply about producing regulatory information faster. It is about helping medtech teams decide whether, when, and how to enter a market before committing budget and resources, with outputs linked back to the regulations, guidance, and laws behind them.

Why fluency is not enough for regulatory work

A general AI tool can be useful for brainstorming, summarizing, and exploring a topic. The challenge comes when an answer has real regulatory consequences. A plausible response may still be incomplete, based on the wrong designation, or disconnected from the current source that should govern the decision.

Medtech makes this especially difficult because the same product can be treated differently across markets and product designations. Medical device, IVD, cosmetic, consumer, OTC, and combination-product considerations can change the regulatory read. A market-entry assessment has to account for that context rather than assume one answer travels cleanly from one jurisdiction to another.

For regulatory teams, the natural next question is: Where did this answer come from? If the system cannot show the underlying authority, the expert still has to rebuild the research before trusting the result. That limits the value of the speed AI was supposed to create in the first place.

Trust starts with a decision you can verify

Market Access is designed around a different outcome. The goal is not to give teams another stream of regulatory information to interpret. It is to provide a source-linked market plan that helps them answer the bigger business question: should we enter this market, not just can we?

For a market assessment, that can include classification, regulatory pathway, timeline, cost considerations, key requirements and potential gaps. The output is designed to give commercial and product leaders an earlier, more defensible view of the opportunity while giving regulatory professionals the detail they need to review the basis for the assessment.

Trust comes from being able to inspect that basis. Market Access works from a curated regulatory corpus spanning more than 200 markets rather than relying on the open web. Answers are linked to the specific regulation, guidance, or law behind them, so a regulatory professional can verify the source instead of being asked to accept an AI-generated conclusion on faith.

Three things make regulatory intelligence more defensible

1. Source traceability

A regulatory answer is more useful when the person reviewing it can follow the evidence. Market Access links outputs back to their underlying regulatory sources. That changes the review process from “Do I trust the AI?” to a more practical question: “Does the cited source support this conclusion for our product and situation?”

That is an important shift for regulatory teams. Instead of assembling every market assessment from a blank page, they can review a structured, sourced plan, challenge assumptions, and focus their expertise on the places where judgment matters most.

2. Regulatory specificity

Trust also depends on context. Market Access is purpose-built for medtech regulatory complexity and supports cross-designation classification. The objective is to evaluate the product in the context of the market and the applicable regulatory framework, then carry that context into the pathway, requirements, timeline, cost considerations, and gaps that shape the market-entry decision.

This is where a purpose-built market-planning platform differs from a generic chat experience. The value is not an impressive answer in isolation. It is a connected assessment that helps the team understand what entering the market is likely to require and whether the opportunity still makes sense once those requirements are visible.

3. Human judgment stays in control

No system can remove every area of uncertainty from regulatory work. Reviewer interpretation and expert judgment still affect outcomes, and Market Access is not designed to promise approval.

Instead, Market Access is designed to make uncertainty more manageable. Regulatory professionals review and validate the work before it moves into execution. They can verify sources, assess the gaps, and apply company and product context that software cannot fully replace. The technology accelerates the research and planning. The regulatory professional remains responsible for the judgment.

What trust looks like in a market-entry decision

Imagine a team evaluating several markets for a new product. The commercial question is not simply whether registration is technically possible. The team needs to know which markets deserve investment now, which may require more evidence or resources, and which could put the revenue window at risk because the pathway is longer or more complex than expected.

Regulatory has a different, but connected, need. They have to understand the classification and pathway, identify the requirements most likely to slow the submission, and confirm that the plan reflects the relevant regulatory sources.

Market Access brings those views together. Commercial and product leaders get earlier visibility into timing, cost considerations, requirements, and risk so they can build a stronger business case. Regulatory teams get a source-linked plan they can review rather than a collection of unsupported conclusions. Both groups are working from the same market-entry picture before significant resources are committed.

Trust is not the end goal. Better decisions are.

It is easy for a conversation about regulatory AI to become a conversation about models, agents, or architecture. Those details matter, but they are not the business outcome.

The real value of trustworthy regulatory intelligence is what it lets a team do next. It can help a commercial leader defend a market investment. It can help regulatory surface issues earlier. It can give both groups a more predictable view of the work ahead before budget, R&D capacity, or launch timing is locked in.

And once the decision is made, the work does not have to stop at an intelligence report. Market Access is the market-planning layer. Rimsys RIM is the execution layer for registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, and ongoing regulatory work. Each can stand on its own, and together they create a path from the market-entry decision into controlled execution.

A more useful standard for regulatory AI

The question for medtech teams should not be whether AI can produce a regulatory answer. It can. The better question is whether that answer is specific enough, traceable enough, and reviewable enough to support a real decision.

Market Access is built around that standard: a defensible view of whether, when, and how to enter a market, grounded in curated regulatory sources and kept under human review. Because when the decision affects revenue, resources, and regulatory strategy, sounding right is not enough. Teams need to see why the answer is right, where uncertainty remains, and what it means for the decision in front of them.

Company

Product Updates

Rimsys Announces AI-Native Market Access for Regulated Products

By

Bethaney Lentz

September 1, 2026

4 min read

New software gives regulatory and commercial leaders a source-linked, actionable view of market viability, requirements, timing, and risk before committing resources

PITTSBURGH, PA, September 1, 2026 - Rimsys, the heart of medtech regulatory operations, today announced Market Access, a new AI-native product designed to help companies determine whether a market is worth entering and what it will take to get there. Market Access will be available in beta beginning September 1, 2026, with general availability to be announced separately.

Market Access replaces what can be a 6-to-9-month research and assessment process with a same-day, actionable read on market viability. It gives regulatory and commercial leaders the classification, pathway, timeline, cost considerations, and potential regulatory gaps they need to make a more defensible investment decision before committing budget and resources.

Predictability is at the core of Market Access. Rather than simply identifying a regulatory pathway, it helps teams understand what to expect, which requirements or gaps are most likely to slow down a submission, and where uncertainty remains. Every answer traces back to the specific regulation, guidance, or law behind it, allowing regulatory professionals to verify the underlying source rather than simply trust an AI-generated response.

Key features and benefits include:

  • Same-day market assessment: Provides an actionable read on whether a market is worth entering, replacing research and assessment that can take 6 to 9 months.
  • Cross-designation classification: Evaluates products across medical device, IVD, cosmetic, consumer, and OTC designations, so the same product receives the appropriate regulatory read regardless of how a given market classifies it.
  • Clear market-entry requirements: Provides classification, regulatory pathway, timeline, cost considerations, and key requirements before teams commit resources.
  • Earlier visibility into regulatory gaps: Surfaces the specific requirements and gaps most likely to slow down a submission and helps teams understand their potential severity.
  • Greater predictability: Provides visibility into anticipated regulatory response windows, risks, and areas of uncertainty so teams can better plan for what lies ahead.
  • Source-linked intelligence: Traces answers to the underlying regulations, guidance, and laws so regulatory professionals can verify the basis for an assessment.
  • AI with human oversight: Uses Rimsys AI and Market Manager Agents to accelerate complex regulatory research while keeping regulatory professionals in control of review and validation.
  • Connected planning and execution: Complements RIM, connecting market-entry decisions with the registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, and ongoing compliance required to execute them.

“Regulatory knowledge has traditionally been highly dependent on individual expertise and market-by-market research,” said James Gianoutsos, Founder and CEO of Rimsys. “Market Access gives companies greater predictability before they make a market investment. Teams can understand whether an opportunity is worth pursuing, what it will take to enter, where regulatory challenges are likely to emerge, and what uncertainty remains. And because every answer is tied to its regulatory source, experts can verify the recommendation rather than simply trust the AI.”

Market Access is powered by Rimsys AI, which works from a curated regulatory corpus spanning more than 200 markets, not the open web. Its Market Manager Agents are AI agents with market-specific regulatory knowledge, including pathways, requirements, and documentation, that support market assessments and global launch planning. The product is also designed to acknowledge areas where reviewer interpretation and expert judgment can affect regulatory outcomes rather than presenting those outcomes as more predictable than they are.

Market Access expands the Rimsys product portfolio from regulatory execution into market planning. Market Access helps regulatory and commercial leaders determine where to compete, while RIM manages the registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, product data, and ongoing compliance required to enter and remain in those markets. Together, they turn regulatory intelligence into coordinated action, helping regulatory teams accomplish more in every hour while giving business leaders greater visibility into opportunities, risk, and the work required to protect and grow revenue.

Beta Availability

Market Access will be available in beta beginning September 1, 2026. During the beta period, Rimsys will continue validating product capabilities and refining workflows ahead of broader commercial availability. 

Organizations interested in learning more about Market Access or participating in the beta program can visit rimsys.io/products/market-access.

About Rimsys

Rimsys is the heart of regulatory operations, connecting AI-native market planning with AI-embedded regulatory execution, giving medtech manufacturers one living system from market-entry decision to execution. 

Rimsys Market Access is the planning layer, answering not just whether a market can be entered, but whether it should be, returning classification, pathway, timeline, and cost before a team commits budget or resources to finding out. Rimsys RIM is the execution layer, managing registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, and compliance so teams can act on that plan with confidence.

Trusted by 6 of the top 12 global MedTech manufacturers and certified to ISO 27001 and SOC 2, with ISO 42001 certification for AI management systems underway, Rimsys keeps regulatory intelligence, product data, approvals, and change management continuously connected so teams can enter new markets with speed and assurance. Learn more at rimsys.io.

Media Contact
letschat@rimsys.io

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.