Use first: the MDR covers medical devices for human use, accessories, and covered Annex XVI products without an intended medical purpose from the applicable common-specification date.
This artifact turns product claims, software functions, links, exclusions, market activity, and Annex XVI status into a documented qualification decision and a separate classification next step.
An MDR applicability test should answer a narrow question before classification or conformity assessment: is the product a medical device, an , , a covered Annex XVI product without an intended medical purpose, or outside MDR scope based on , product characteristics, and the EU market activity?
1
Section 1
Start with intended medical purpose
Capture the exact from labels, instructions for use, website claims, clinical workflow descriptions, sales material, and the clinical evaluation. Under Article 2(1), a medical device includes software and other articles intended by the manufacturer for specified medical purposes such as diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, prediction, prognosis, treatment, alleviation, investigation, replacement, modification, or providing information by in vitro examination of human specimens.
Also identify the regulated activity. Article 1 applies to placing a device on the Union market, making it available, putting it into service, and clinical investigations conducted in the Union. A product can meet the device definition while a particular prototype, export-only transaction, in-house use, or investigational use follows a different MDR route or exception.
Record whether the principal intended action is achieved by pharmacological, immunological, or metabolic means. If that action is principal rather than ancillary, the MDR record should flag a medicinal-product interface instead of forcing the product into MDR qualification.
Decision output: in scope as a medical device, in scope as an , in scope as a covered Annex XVI product, subject to a special MDR route or exception, excluded or governed mainly by another regime, or unresolved borderline question.
Evidence to retain: intended-purpose statement, claim inventory, screenshots or approved copy, labelling and IFU extracts, design description, mode-of-action analysis, and the reviewer-approved qualification rationale.
Escalation trigger: conflicting claims, mixed medical and cosmetic use, drug-device or IVD interfaces, viable biological materials, or uncertainty about whether a medical purpose is being claimed.
Article 1 sets MDR scope and exclusions; Article 2 defines medical device, accessory, and intended purpose.
specific medical purposes
2
Section 2
Separate device, accessory, software, and borderline routes
If the product is not itself a medical device, test whether it is an . Article 2(2) covers an article intended to be used with one or more particular medical devices to enable their or directly assist their medical functionality.
For software, do not decide applicability from hosting location, app format, cloud deployment, healthcare use, or failure risk alone. MDCG 2019-11 Rev.1 says software must have a medical purpose on its own to qualify as . Software that drives or influences a hardware device without its own medical purpose may instead be a part, component, or . Simple search, storage, communication, invoicing, staff planning, and similar non-medical functions do not qualify on that basis alone; a search or data function can qualify when it processes information to achieve a medical purpose.
Device route: the product has its own MDR Article 2(1) medical purpose and is intended for human beings.
route: the product specifically enables or directly assists a named medical device's medical functionality without itself being the medical device.
Software route: identify whether the software processes, analyses, creates, or modifies medical information for a medical , or only stores, transfers, searches, formats, or administers data.
Borderline route: if qualification remains disputed, preserve the rationale and consult the competent authority and current Commission/MDCG borderline material. Under Article 4, only a Member State can make the duly substantiated request that may lead to a Commission implementing act.
The June 2025 revision supports the software decision path, including intended-purpose and modular-software analysis, simple functions that may or may not qualify depending on medical purpose, location independence, and software that drives or influences a device.
Software must have a medical purpose
Recommended EU MDR next step
Turn the applicability answer into a classification record
Use the qualification rationale, intended-purpose evidence, Annex XVI check, and interface notes to prepare the MDR classification memo and conformity-assessment route.
A product can be in MDR scope even when the manufacturer claims only an aesthetic or another non-medical purpose. MDR Article 1(2) brings an Annex XVI group into the MDR from the date the relevant common specifications apply, and Article 1(3) requires products with both medical and non-medical intended purposes to meet both sets of applicable requirements.
Use the Annex XVI check for contact lenses, invasive body-modification products, dermal or mucous membrane fillers, equipment to reduce or remove adipose tissue, high-intensity optical radiation equipment for skin treatment, and non-invasive brain-stimulation equipment. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2346 lays down common specifications and risk-management records for those groups.
Do not stop the test because the commercial claim is aesthetic; check whether the product group is listed in MDR Annex XVI and covered by common specifications.
Retain the Annex XVI group mapping, common-specification applicability note, user or consumer exclusions, risk-management plan, clinical-evaluation safety rationale, and any analogous medical-device comparison used.
If the product has both a medical and non-medical , record both intended purposes and the cumulative requirement path instead of choosing only one label.
This implementing regulation lays down common specifications for Annex XVI products and requires documented risk-management activities for those groups.
common specifications
4
Section 4
Record exclusions and interfaces
Record the exclusions and interfaces that support the final result. MDR Article 1 excludes IVDs covered by Regulation (EU) 2017/746, medicinal products where the medicinal action is principal, advanced therapy medicinal products, cosmetics, food, and certain human, animal, or viable biological materials, while also preserving MDR assessment for device parts in some combination products.
For combination or interface cases, describe the device part, the non-device part, the intended combined use, the principal mode of action, and whether the MDR still applies to the device component or function. An integral product governed as a medicinal product can still have to meet the relevant Annex I requirements for its device part.
IVD interface: record whether the software or product provides information from in vitro examination of human specimens and whether IVDR rather than MDR is the primary regime.
Medicinal interface: record whether any medicinal substance has an ancillary action or the principal intended action.
Cosmetic or aesthetic interface: record whether the product is outside MDR, in Annex XVI, or has both medical and non-medical intended purposes.
System or component interface: record whether the product changes a device's performance, safety characteristics, or , or merely maintains or restores function.
Article 1 identifies MDR exclusions and combination-product interfaces; Article 23 addresses parts and components that may affect performance, safety, or intended purpose.
This Regulation does not apply to
5
Section 5
Test every condition for an in-house health-institution device
Article 5(5) creates a conditional in-house route. The device must be manufactured and used only within a Union , it cannot be transferred to another legal entity, and the institution must manufacture it under an appropriate quality management system. The institution must also justify in its documentation that the target patient group's specific needs cannot be met, or cannot be met at the appropriate performance level, by an equivalent device available on the market.
The institution must give its competent authority information on request, draw up documentation that identifies the manufacturing facility and explains the design, manufacturing process, and performance, and make a public declaration containing the information required by Article 5(5)(e). It must ensure that manufacture follows the documented design and process, review experience from clinical use, and take necessary corrective action. The Article 5(5) exemption does not apply to devices manufactured on an industrial scale. National law can restrict the route further, and Member States may require additional information or inspections.
Hospital laboratory example: record why an internally built dosing aid meets a patient need that an equivalent marketed device cannot meet at the required performance level; price or convenience alone does not establish the Article 5(5) justification.
Shared-service example: if a separately incorporated hospital company manufactures the device and transfers it to another legal entity, stop and reassess the route instead of treating the group as one .
Evidence file: legal-entity and facility map, , patient group, equivalent-device search and performance gap, quality management system controls, applicable Annex I requirements, public declaration, clinical-use review and corrective actions.
Change triggers: external supply, a new facility or legal entity, a marketed equivalent that closes the documented performance gap, changed , adverse experience, or a national requirement.
Articles 2(36) and 5(5) define health institutions and set the cumulative conditions, documentation, public declaration, clinical-use review, competent-authority and national-law controls for in-house devices.
manufactured and used only within health institutions
6
Section 6
Move from applicability to classification
Once applicability is confirmed, classification is the next separate step. Article 51 divides devices into classes I, IIa, IIb, and III based on and inherent risks, and classification is carried out under Annex VIII.
For software, MDCG 2019-11 Rev.1 points to Annex VIII rules including the rule that software driving or influencing a device falls within the same class as the device, independent software is classified in its own right, and where multiple rules apply the stricter rule leading to the higher classification applies. Rule 11 then addresses software used for diagnosis or therapeutic decisions and physiological monitoring.
Classification input: final , patient or user population, invasiveness, active/non-active status, duration of use, body contact, substances, software decision impact, and whether the product drives or influences another device.
Classification output: proposed MDR class, Annex VIII rule or rules, rationale for the selected rule, stricter-rule analysis where needed, and whether notified-body involvement is likely.
Evidence to retain: applicability memo, Annex VIII classification memo, software function map, rule cross-reference, assumptions, reviewer approval, and change triggers that would reopen qualification or classification.
The June 2025 revision supports the software classification handoff, including modular software, software that drives or influences a device, and Rule 11.
Primary MDR text used for scope, medical device and accessory definitions, exclusions, Article 4 borderline decisions, Article 5 placing on the market, Article 51 classification, Annex VIII, and Annex XVI.
Article 1 sets MDR scope and exclusions; Article 2 defines medical device, accessory, and intended purpose.
Article 2 defines accessories and Article 4 provides a route for deciding whether products fall within medical-device or accessory definitions.
Show 4 more
Article 1(2), Article 1(3), and Annex XVI support the no-medical-purpose product applicability check.
Article 1 identifies MDR exclusions and combination-product interfaces; Article 23 addresses parts and components that may affect performance, safety, or intended purpose.
Articles 2(36) and 5(5) define health institutions and set the cumulative conditions, documentation, public declaration, clinical-use review, competent-authority and national-law controls for in-house devices.
Article 51 and Annex VIII support the classification next step after applicability is established.
"specific medical purposes"
More quoted passages
"accessory for a medical device"
"products without an intended medical purpose"
"This Regulation does not apply to"
"manufactured and used only within health institutions"
June 2025 guidance used for medical device software qualification, modular software, functions whose qualification depends on medical purpose, software location, accessory/component treatment, and software classification handoff.
The June 2025 revision supports the software decision path, including intended-purpose and modular-software analysis, simple functions that may or may not qualify depending on medical purpose, location independence, and software that drives or influences a device.
The June 2025 revision supports the software classification handoff, including modular software, software that drives or influences a device, and Rule 11.
Common specifications source used for Annex XVI products without an intended medical purpose, including risk-management documentation expectations.
This implementing regulation lays down common specifications for Annex XVI products and requires documented risk-management activities for those groups.