Eligibility and landscape
Classification search, predicate challenge, 513(g) or Q-Submission considerations and documented rationale for the proposed De Novo route.
FDA De Novo Classification Request
We help teams assess De Novo eligibility, define the device type and risks, plan the evidence, propose proportionate special controls and assemble the request in FDA eSTAR.
Selected clients
Healthcare teams we have supported


















Scope and deliverables
The pathway must be justified product by product. De Novo is not a shortcut around evidence and is not appropriate for high-risk devices requiring PMA.
Classification search, predicate challenge, 513(g) or Q-Submission considerations and documented rationale for the proposed De Novo route.
Proposed device type, identification, class, regulation language, product-code concepts and scope boundaries.
Risk-to-health analysis, mitigations, proposed special controls and explanation of why general and special controls provide reasonable assurance.
Benefits, risks, uncertainty, patient perspective where relevant, nonclinical and clinical evidence mapped to each regulatory question.
Device description, labeling, software, cybersecurity, human factors, performance and administrative content assembled in the current template.
Acceptance preparation, interactive review, response planning and controlled amendments through grant or decline.
Ways to work together
Resolve classification, evidence and special-control questions with a focused FDA feedback package before major spend.
Coordinate the regulatory narrative and agreed technical workstreams through eSTAR submission and review.
Review an existing plan or request for predicate risk, evidence gaps, control sufficiency and internal consistency.
How it works
Assess novelty, risk, predicate landscape and alternative pathways.
Link risks to mitigations, evidence and proposed special controls.
Generate and integrate technical, clinical, software and labeling evidence in eSTAR.
Support FDA questions, amendments and final classification requirements.
Regulations, standards and guidance considered
Frequently asked questions
It is intended for certain novel device types for which general controls, or general and special controls, can provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and for which there is no legally marketed predicate supporting a 510(k).
No. A sponsor may submit a direct De Novo request without first receiving a not-substantially-equivalent decision, provided the statutory criteria and request requirements are met.
Special controls are device-specific regulatory requirements for class II devices, potentially including performance standards, testing, labeling, patient monitoring or post-market measures. Proposed controls should be precise, verifiable and tied to identified risks.
Not automatically, but novel intended uses or technologies often create questions that cannot be answered by nonclinical testing alone. The decision should follow from the benefit-risk and uncertainty analysis, ideally informed by early FDA feedback.
A grant creates a new class I or II device type and classification regulation. When applicable, the granted device may then serve as a predicate for future 510(k)s.
No. FDA may disagree with eligibility, classification, controls or evidence and can request additional information or decline the request. Timelines also depend on sponsor response periods.
Start with the product you have