How device classification determines regulatory pathways and approval requirements
In Japan, medical devices are generally classified into four risk-based classes. Understanding your device's classification is essential for determining the appropriate regulatory pathway.
Class I devices are generally considered to have extremely low risk. These products may be subject to notification rather than certification or approval. However, companies should still confirm the Japanese medical device nomenclature, product description, labeling and responsible marketing structure before market entry.
Class II devices are generally considered low-risk medical devices. Some Class II devices may be eligible for certification by a Registered Certification Body when applicable certification standards exist. Other Class II devices may require approval. The distinction depends not only on risk class but also on the existence and applicability of certification standards.
Class III devices are generally considered medium-risk devices. Some Class III devices may be eligible for certification if applicable standards exist, while others may require approval by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare following PMDA review. Because Class III devices can involve more significant safety and performance considerations, early regulatory pathway assessment is important.
Class IV devices are generally high-risk medical devices. These products typically require approval by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, with PMDA review. For Class IV devices, clinical evaluation, performance data, risk management, QMS and labeling may become important regulatory considerations.
While classification is important, it is not the only factor that determines the Japanese regulatory pathway. Other important factors include Japanese medical device nomenclature, intended use, indications, product structure, materials, duration and type of patient contact, sterilization status, reusable or single-use status, use with other medical devices, availability of certification standards, similarity to approved or certified devices in Japan, clinical positioning, and product novelty. For this reason, product classification should be reviewed together with the expected regulatory route.
In broad terms, some Class I devices may follow a notification route, certain Class II and Class III devices may follow a certification route when applicable standards exist, other Class II and Class III devices may require approval, and Class IV devices generally require approval. However, practical determination requires product-specific assessment. For overseas manufacturers, the most common mistake is assuming that 'Class II' automatically means certification or that a foreign classification can be directly applied to Japan.
A product may be classified differently across jurisdictions because each market has its own regulatory definitions, nomenclature, classification rules and review practices. For example, a product that is already marketed in another region may still require careful review in Japan if the intended use differs from existing Japanese products, the product has a new structure or material, the duration of use is different, the clinical positioning is not clearly aligned with Japanese practice, there is no applicable certification standard, or existing foreign data does not directly address Japanese review expectations. This is particularly important for specialized medical devices such as endoscopic accessories, biliary stents and pancreaticobiliary devices.
GI endoscopy-related devices often require careful regulatory review because their classification and pathway may depend on product-specific factors. Examples of relevant considerations include contact site and contact duration, use in the digestive tract or biliary tract, sterile or non-sterile supply, single-use or reusable design, use with an endoscope or other devices, treatment, diagnosis or access purpose, similarity to existing Japanese devices, and need for performance and clinical explanation. For devices such as biliary stents, ERCP-related accessories and EUS-BD-related devices, classification should be considered together with intended use and clinical role.
Early classification review can help avoid delays and rework later in the regulatory process.
Expert Japan regulatory affairs consulting for medical devices.
Specialized support for GI endoscopy and related devices.
Expert support for biliary stents, ERCP and EUS-BD devices.
Clinical evaluation strategy and CER preparation support.
MK Consulting supports medical device companies in reviewing Japan classification and regulatory pathways. We can help identify the appropriate pathway and key regulatory issues before submission.
Contact MK Consulting