Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Through Class Dismissed, attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Products Liability practices offer a real-time assessment of the developments in matters that are shaping the industry. This blog examines the full spectrum of consumer-related class action and product liability lawsuits ranging from false advertising, privacy, consumer product safety, ADA, food misbranding, TCPA, environment, retail, and government actions as well as nationwide and multidistrict litigation class actions.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

park_julie_blog_150x150.png

park_julie_common_640x280.jpg

park_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

park_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

park_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Julie Park protects her clients’ products no matter what kind of product issue they face—whether it is planning for new product development, recalling an existing product, or defending clients against product liability or consumer class actions. Drawing on her deep technical and legal expertise, Julie counsels clients on consumer product safety regulation and pharmaceutical and medical device preemption while also managing complex and multijurisdictional litigation both in state and federal court.

Julie Y. Park

<div class="videoWrapper"><iframe frameborder="0" class="sticky-video" allowfullscreen="1" title="Meet Penny Preovolos, Litigation Partner" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hv7hYn-Bl7c?rel=0&showinfo=0;vq=hd1080" title="iframe"></iframe></div>Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products. According to Chambers USA, Penelope has a “great reputation for antitrust and product liability work” and is a “superb all-around antitrust lawyer.”Penelope was named the 2019 Antitrust Lawyer of the Year by the Antitrust, UCL, and Privacy Section of the California Lawyers Association. She was co-chair of MoFo’s antitrust practice for 14 years. She has served as chair of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section of the State Bar of California and as a member of the Ninth Circuit Advisory Committee on Local Rules and Operations. She is an editor of and frequent contributor to Morrison & Foerster’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed blog</a>, as well as a frequent speaker about class action and antitrust issues.More About PenelopePenelope clerked for the Honorable Charles M. Merrill, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review. Penelope was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at the University of California, Berkeley. She was awarded the University Medal, the highest undergraduate honor at the university, as well as the English Departmental Citation (awarded to the outstanding graduate in that department).

preovolos_penelope_blog_150x150.png

preovolos_penelope_common_640x280.jpg

preovolos_penelope_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preovolos_penelope_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preovolos_penelope_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Counsel

Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products.

Penelope A. Preovolos

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class action lawsuits. Claudia also regularly counsels clients in the food, cosmetics, retail, and technology industries. She represents companies in false advertising disputes before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.<h5>More about Claudia</h5>Claudia is active in MoFo’s pro bono efforts, and recently traveled to El Paso, Texas, to work with families separated and detained at the border. She is also supervising a pro bono collaboration with Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit fighting for gender justice in work places and schools across the country. The initiative will help students who have been victims of sexual assault, attempted assault, or harassment find support and seek justice. Claudia is also a board member of Bay Area Legal Aid and a former board member of Equal Rights Advocates. Claudia is an editor and frequent contributor to MoFo’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed</a> blog, which provides reports about the latest defense news, developments, and trends in class action lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Her perspectives are also respected in the larger legal community: Claudia has published articles about class action and false advertising issues, and is a co-author of Chapter 7 — “Unfair Competition in California Business Litigation 2016” — of The Recorder. She also regularly speaks at conferences on class action and advertising trends. Claudia is currently serving as a Lawyer Representative for the Northern District of California. She received her J.D. degree in 2004 from Berkeley Law (Boalt Hall School of Law), where she was an associate editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.

vetesi_claudia_blog_150x150.png

vetesi_claudia_common_640x280.jpg

vetesi_claudia_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

vetesi_claudia_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

vetesi_claudia_social_600x600.jpg

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class actions.

Claudia M. Vetesi

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office.Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.Alexandra has significant trial experience. She has first-chaired a one-week jury trial and second-chaired a five‑week jury trial, both involving multiple claims and witnesses. She also has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution, representing clients at mediations, mandatory settlement conferences, and early neutral evaluations.Alexandra enjoys tracking developments and keeping her clients updated on product liability and personal injury claims, frequently writing or presenting on emerging areas such as autonomous vehicles and smart devices. Alexandra’s experience also extends to professional liability, warranty claims, eminent domain, and construction law.Alexandra earned her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law. While in law school, the San Diego Law Review published her comment on the recovery of damages by plaintiffs in a persistent vegetative state, and she also served as a comment editor. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, where she majored in Political Science and minored in Spanish. A San Diego native, she attended a Spanish immersion school through the eighth grade. Alexandra is active in the San Diego community, advising students at a local college. She is also a member of several legal organizations in San Diego, including Lawyer’s Club, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and Wallace Inn of Court.

preece_alex_blog_150x150.png

preece_alex_common_640x280.jpg

preece_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preece_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preece_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra’s litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, AI, and robotics. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow

Adam J. Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.Mr. Hunt has extensive experience representing consumer products companies, financial institutions, and technology firms in class action cases and complex commercial disputes before state and federal trial courts, as well as in arbitrations. Clients seek Mr. Hunt’s counsel for his creative, strategic thinking in high-stakes, high-profile matters. He has represented clients facing claims under false advertising, antitrust, and privacy laws throughout the country, securing wins at the pleading stage, summary judgment, and trial, in addition to negotiating favorable settlements, often early in the case. Representative experience includes successfully securing rulings dismissing two putative false advertising class action cases against one of the best-known consumer electronics companies in the world; obtaining a complete win on summary judgment for a major shipping and logistics company in a multimillion-dollar commercial dispute; appearing as counsel at trial for a leading financial institution in a $100 million commercial dispute, winning a bench trial verdict; and prevailing on motions to dismiss false advertising class actions against a leading Greek yogurt company.Mr. Hunt is also an editor of the firm’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/" target="_self">Class Dismissed blog</a>, which provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class action lawsuits that affect consumer-facing companies.Mr. Hunt maintains an active pro bono practice and is the recipient of the New York State Bar Association’s 2017 President’s Pro Bono Service Award for the First Judicial Department, the 2018 Public Service Award from New York University School of Law, and Morrison Foerster’s Kathi Pugh Award for Pro Bono Services.Mr. Hunt received his B.A. with honors from Swarthmore College and his J.D. cum laude from New York University.

hunt_adam_blog_150x150.png

hunt_adam_common_640x280.jpg

hunt_adam_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

hunt_adam_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

hunt_adam_social_600x600.jpg

Adam Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.

Adam Hunt

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. Subscribe to receive the latest updates by attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices.

Welcome to Class Dismissed

class-dismissed-welcome-image.jpeg

class-dismissed-welcome-image

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. 

Class Action

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

The latest news and insights from the nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices of Morrison & Foerster.

Class Dismissed

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Class Dismissed Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from Class Dismissed. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Class Action and Product Insights for Your Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

In December, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance on Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices.  The guidance re

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

TCPA

Announcements & Press

Antitrust

Appellate & Supreme Court

Arbitration

Autonomous Vehicles & Robotics

Aviation & Drones

Class Certification

Consumer Products

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

CPSC

Drug & Medical Device

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

Environmental Law

False Advertising

FCRA

Food Misbranding

Government Actions

Internet of Things

Mass Torts

Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices

Privacy

Product Liability

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act)

Retail

Trials

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

3D Printing Meets Medical Devices:  FDA Weighs In On Additive Manufacturing

3D Printing Meets Medical Devices:  FDA Weighs In On Additive Manufacturing | Class Dismissed

Erin M. Bosman

In December, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance on <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM499809.pdf?utm_campaign=CDRH%20New%202017-12-05&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqTrackId=0143682DBD922C680E5ECEF5378087CA&elq=3ca3ce2d66164349a31507fefc45ff0c&elqaid=1630&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=1050" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices</a>.  The guidance represents FDA’s efforts to provide regulatory direction about additive manufacturing (AM)—the broad field of 3D printing—of medical devices.  Specifically, AM makes objects by sequentially building 2-dimensional layers and joining each to the layer below.  AM enables diverse design models without the need to retool or create complex manufacturing machines to build components.  The FDA guidance focuses on technical aspects of AM, and is organized into two topics:  (1) design and manufacturing considerations; and (2) device testing considerations.  The guidance notes that FDA “does not comprehensively address all considerations or regulatory requirements to establish a quality system for the manufacturing” of AM devices.  Instead, FDA recommends testing and characterization for devices that include at least one additively‑manufactured component or additively‑fabricated step.  The guidance also reflects the agency’s current thinking on AM for medical devices.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a>AM is a rapidly growing technology with numerous applications in medical devices.  Representing a step toward personalized medicine, AM can facilitate anatomically‑matched devices and surgical instrumentation by using the patient’s own medical imaging (these are referred to as “patient-matched devices”).  AM can create complex geometric structures that would otherwise be impossible to manufacture, or too costly to manufacture under traditional manufacturing approaches.  These technologies can prove life-saving.  For example, in 2012, after receiving emergency clearance from FDA, medical staff at the University of Michigan used AM processes to create a bioresorbable tracheal splint that they used to rescue an infant suffering from a collapsed bronchus due to severe tracheobronchomalacia.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>  The splint was implanted in the infant’s airway, expanding the bronchus and allowing for future proper growth.  Within weeks, the infant was off ventilator support and breathing normally.  AM saved the baby’s life.Recognizing the benefits of AM, FDA is preparing for “a significant wave of new technologies that are nearly certain to transform medical practice.”  The FDA Commissioner does recognize that novel aspects of the AM process lack substantial clinical histories and experimentation.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a>  Accordingly, use of AM techniques in sensitive medical contexts poses challenges, and FDA anticipates that manufacturers may struggle in “determining optimal characterization and assessment methods for the final finished device, as well as optimal process validation and acceptance methods for these devices.”  So far, FDA has reviewed more than 100 medical devices that were manufactured using AM techniques.  FDA also recently approved a drug for seizures that was 3D-printed to create a more porous matrix than the drug would have had if manufactured using traditional means.  This allowed the drug to dissolve more rapidly in the mouth.  FDA further anticipates that AM can lead to treatments for burn wounds and even artificial replacement organs.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>Design and Manufacturing Process ConsiderationsFDA anticipates that its standard premarket submission process will apply in equal force to AM devices as it does to traditionally-manufactured devices.  Accordingly, for Class II and III devices (and select Class I devices), manufacturers “must establish and maintain procedures to control the design of the device in order to ensure that specified design requirements are met per 21 CFR 820.30 Design Controls.”  The FDA further expects manufacturers to “establish procedures including validation of the manufacturing process of AM devices to ensure that the device can perform as intended.”  Especially where the final result of a process cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspection and testing, the process must be “validated with a high degree of assurance and approved according to established procedures.”Because several AM technologies and processing steps can be used in medical devices, the guidance urges manufacturers to “clearly identify each step in the printing process.”  In this vein, FDA recommends use of production flow diagrams coupled with high-level summaries of each critical step to help ensure product quality.  Each described process step should include “a description of the process, and identification of the process parameters and output specifications.”  Delineated, step-by-step descriptions of each process should be well documented to allow the manufacturer to identify and remedy any root causes of failures from manufacturing defects; absent such detailed process instructions, defects can be difficult to pinpoint and correct.  Because AM processes can be quickly modified and adapted to specific use-scenarios, dimensional specifications for the final device or component, as well as manufacturing tolerances of the manufacturing machine, should be properly documented.Additional considerations come with patient-matched devices, which may not have a “standard‑sized template” (since they are contoured to individual patients) and may be modified by clinical staff, the device manufacturer, or third parties in response to clinical inputs.  Because of this customizability, manufacturers “should clearly identify clinically relevant design parameters, the pre-determined range (min/max) for these parameters, and which of these parameters can be modified for patient-matching.”  The guidance specifically recommends, to the extent applicable, that manufacturers address:  (1) effects and necessity of imaging; (2) clinical and patient interactions with design models; (3) maintenance of data integrity of complex design files; and (4) the (cyber)security of personally identifiable information.FDA provides that “AM typically involves interaction between several software packages, often from different manufacturers[.]”  As a result, errors in file conversions and software interactions can negatively impact the quality of the AM process and final device.  For this reason, FDA recommends that manufacturers “verify the critical attributes and performance criteria of [their] final products as part of the software workflow validation to ensure expected performance, especially for patient-matched devices.”Further, once a device design is complete, manufacturers should consider additional preparatory processes, including:<ul><li>placement, orientation, and packing density of devices or components within the build volume;</li><li>use of additional support material or structures for certain design features;</li><li>layer thickness of each “slice” created by the AM machine as related to the layer-by-layer printing process;</li><li>the build path, or path traced by the energy or material delivery system (e.g., laser or extruder);</li><li>required machine parameters and calibrations (e.g., build speed, total energy density, and focal point or nozzle diameter); and</li><li>environmental conditions within the build volume (e.g., temperature, pressure, and atmospheric compositions).</li></ul>FDA recommends that materials used in AM processes should be well documented and chosen based on the AM technology used, the intended use of the final medical product, and any other information available.  Reuse of certain materials (something possible when using AM technologies) is allowed but should be scrupulously documented.  Evidence should be provided that reuse will not adversely affect the final device.  Any post-processing steps of AM (manufacturing steps occurring after the printing process) that may affect device performance and material properties should also be well documented and include analysis of any effects such steps may have.As noted above, when a final result of a process cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspection and testing, the process must be validated with a high degree of assurance.  For such validation processes, monitoring and control methods of data must be documented.  Such methods may include monitoring and documenting parameters such as:<ul><li>temperature at the beam focus;</li><li>melt pool data;</li><li>build-space environmental conditions;</li><li>location in the build volume where a device or component was built; and</li><li>power of the energy delivery system.</li></ul>These same methods may also be helpful for processes that are not required to be validated.Device Testing ConsiderationsGenerally, FDA advises that AM product performance testing should be implemented in the same manner as if the device were manufactured using traditional manufacturing methods.  Depending on the device type, these testing methods may include: “material property testing such as modulus, yield strength, ultimate strength, creep/viscoelasticity, fatigue, or abrasive wear.”  Further, performance testing should be conducted on all finished devices following post-processing, cleaning, and sterilization steps.  Manufacturers should also conduct tests targeting the “worst-case combinations” of dimensions, features, orientations of the materials, and locations in the build space to ensure adequate product performance.  These tests should include a discussion of how the combinations were selected and why each test was conducted.  Manufacturers should create and maintain “test coupons” (a representative test sample of the device or component) when evaluating AM products.Recognizing that AM processes may lead to a wider variance in end products than traditional manufacturing methods, FDA recommends that manufacturers specify and adhere to pre-set dimensional tolerances by measuring representative product samples.  Manufacturers should address any variability due to orientation and build location if studies show variance based on these parameters.  In order to maintain consistency, product measurements should be made on samples from multiple build cycles and manufacturers are expected to provide justification for the sampling scheme used.  Finally, process validation information may help demonstrate negligible variability between products in different build cycles or batches.Because of the iterative nature of AM, starting materials may be exposed to partial re-melting and solidifications multiple times.  This may result in unexpected or undesired material compositions.  Because many AM medical devices will be used in sensitive medical contexts (often surgically implanted into a patient), manufacturers should conduct biocompatibility testing and incorporate guidance proffered in “<a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm348890.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, ‘Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process’</a>” if necessary.  Specific testing (e.g., in vitro degradation testing) may be necessary if the AM device uses an absorbable material.One of the greatest advantages of AM devices is the ability to make highly complex components and end products.  With that advantage comes an inherent disadvantage—AM devices may be exceptionally hard to clean and sterilize.  AM also allows porous structures to be produced earlier in the manufacturing process than traditional methods, which may result in greater soiling by subsequent exposure to other AM materials.  Accordingly, manufacturers should create work-flows and be able to validate that any remaining material residue will not adversely affect the device’s quality.  A summary of this information should be included in premarket submissions to the agency.  Additionally, the guidance warns that many end-use facilities will not have access to the equipment or materials needed to implement on-site cleaning procedures designed to remove residual manufacturing materials.  Accordingly, only devices that are sufficiently cleaned should be provided to the end user.LabelingFinally, the guidance provides that AM device labeling “should be developed in accordance with applicable regulations, device-specific guidance documents, and consensus standards.”  Additional labeling is recommended for AM devices that are patient-matched.  FDA recommends that such labeling identify (1) the patient; (2) the products used (e.g., left distal femoral surgical guide); and (3) final design iteration or version used to produce the device.  Expiration dates for patient-matched devices should also be included.  Because it is possible that a patient may experience an event between imaging and surgery, FDA also recommends that manufacturers include a precaution in their labeling that the patient should be evaluated for potential anatomical changes prior to the procedure.ConclusionThough not binding, manufacturers should consider adopting the recommendations included in the FDA’s guidance on AM.  As with other FDA guidance documents, future regulations are likely to incorporate and expand on these existing guidelines.<a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a>  The FDA categorized this document as “leap-frog” guidance because “it helps bridge where we are today with innovations of tomorrow.”<a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Moore, Nicole, 3D Printed Splint Saves the Life of a Baby, Michigan Engineer News Center (May 22, 2013).<a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Statement of FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on FDA ushering in new era of 3D printing of medical products (Dec. 4, 2017), <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm587547.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm587547.htm</a>.<a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> Id.