FDA Guidance for Industry: Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations

New Drug Approvals

FDA Guidance for Industry: Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations
The FDA published its new Guidance for Industry (GfI) – “Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations” in September 2013. The Guidance defines the expectations of the FDA concerning electronic source data generated in the context of clinical trials. Find out more about this Guidance.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_4288_FDA%20Guidance%20for%20Industry%3A%20Electronic%20Source%20Data%20in%20Clinical%20Investigations_8534,8457,8366,8308,Z-COVM_n.html

FDA Guidance for Industry: Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations

After more than 5 years and two draft versions, the final version of the Guidance for Industry (GfI) – “Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations” was published in September 2013. This new FDA Guidance defines the FDA’s expectations for sponsors, CROs, investigators and other persons involved in the capture, review and retention of electronic source data generated in the context of FDA-regulated clinical trials. In an effort to encourage the modernization and increased efficiency of processes in clinical trials, the FDA clearly supports the capture…

View original post 153 more words

Advertisement

USPTO Guidance On Patentable Subject Matter: Impediment to Biotech Innovation?

New Drug Approvals

USPTO Guidance On Patentable Subject Matter: Impediment to Biotech Innovation?

http://commercialbiotechnology.com/index.php/jcb/article/view/664
Abstract

In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision upending more than three decades worth of established patent practice when it ruled that isolated gene sequences are no longer patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.While many practitioners in the field believed that the USPTO would interpret the decision narrowly, the USPTO actually expanded the scope of the decision when it issued its guidelines for determining whether an invention satisfies Section 101. The guidelines were met with intense backlash with many arguing that they unnecessarily expanded the scope of the Supreme Court cases in a way that could unduly restrict the scope of patentable subject matter, weaken the U.S. patent system, and create a disincentive to innovation. By undermining patentable subject matter in this way, the guidelines may end up harming not only the companies…

View original post 23 more words