The Growing PFAS Focus in Europe and the UK – Strategies for Life Sciences Companies

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – which are widely used across industries and in life sciences applications, from cosmetics and food-contact-material to medical devices and pharmaceuticals – have become an increasing focus of regulatory scrutiny across Europe.  In the EU, broad legislative measures aim at restricting the manufacture, placing on the market, and use of PFAS across a wide range of industries, resulting in industry and policy consequences.  In contrast, the United Kingdom is considering more targeted regulatory approaches, signaling a potential divergence from the EU framework.  The life sciences sector is particularly affected by these developments, given its historic reliance on PFAS in discovery, development, manufacturing, packaging, delivery, and safe use of medicines and healthcare products.  These substances are often used for safety and performance reasons, e.g., in diagnostic assays and implantable medical devices, and play a key role in many pharmaceutical manufacturing processes.  While carve-outs are likely to apply for certain uses, a broad legislative measure will undoubtfully have sweeping consequences for the life sciences industry. This blog post examines the evolving European regulatory landscape and considers the implications of forthcoming PFAS restrictions for businesses operating in the life sciences sector in Europe.

A More Competitive MedTech Landscape in the EU? What the MDR/IVDR Revision Could Mean for MedTech Manufacturers and Investors

The EU’s targeted revision of the medical device and in vitro diagnostics framework has entered a more active phase, with nearly 800 amendments tabled in Parliament in July 2026 and the Council’s examination continuing in parallel. The revision would ease certification bottlenecks by removing the five-year cap on certificate validity, scaling notified body involvement to device risk, and letting lower-risk software move down to self-certified Class I. It would also loosen clinical evidence requirements, create fast-track pathways for orphan and breakthrough devices, and regulate AI-enabled devices primarily under the MDR/IVDR rather than the AI Act. This post summarizes the key aspects of the proposed revision, the prospects for their adoption, the issues still in play, and what manufacturers and investors should plan for.

2025 to First-Half 2026 Marks a Breakout Time for CVRs

Sally Wagner Partin and Sharon Flanagan look at the results of Sidley’s latest survey of contingent value rights (“CVRs”), analyzing recent trends in life sciences public M&A and finding a record share of deals using a CVR, particularly in biopharma and also increasingly in medical devices.

EU Biotech Act I: Parliament and Council back Europe’s biotech competitiveness agenda – SPC incentive now the key battleground

Momentum is building behind the European Biotech Act I. The European Parliament and the Council of the EU broadly back the competitiveness agenda, with strong cross-party support for faster clinical trials, strategic-project funding, and regulatory simplification, and Member States showing less resistance than expected. The supplementary protection certificate (SPC) extension is the main open point – and the clearest test of how far Europe will go to attract biotechnology research, development, manufacturing, and investment.

The Commission presented its proposal in December 2025 (see our initial Sidley blog post here). This update focuses on how the package has evolved since then and what the latest developments in Parliament and the Council mean for biopharmaceutical developers and investors.

HHS Secretary Announces Intent to Extend HHS-OIG Exclusion Authority to CMS, Expanding the Administration’s Anti-Fraud Campaign

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently announced that he would give CMS the authority to exclude individuals and entities from participation in federal health care programs, an authority previously held only by HHS-OIG. While the announcement has not been formalized since announced in July, the announcement signals a potentially far-reaching expansion of CMS’s enforcement powers, which in turn would have implications for healthcare providers, suppliers, manufacturers, vendors, and other industry stakeholders.

When AI Changes The Deal: Seven AI-related Considerations for Life Sciences M&A Dealmakers

Sally Wagner Partin, Sharon R. Flanagan, and Torrey Cope consider how AI is reshaping drug development, particularly at the stages of target and compound identification, and set out the implications of those changes for valuation, diligence, risk, milestone design, and timing in life sciences transactions.

Is my product a medical device? EU Court judgment clarifies that the test includes objective function and intended purpose, and provides guidance relevant to software and AI-enabled tools

The recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or the Court) in Case C-427/24, Diagramm Halbach clarifies the key principles for determining whether a product falls within the definition of a medical device and will be subject to the EU medical device regime. Crucially, the CJEU held that this analysis includes an assessment of both the manufacturer’s intended purpose of the product and whether the product objectively performs functions for a specific medical purpose listed in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/745, the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR).

Resources

 

Upcoming Events

SUBSCRIBE

To receive email alerts when we post a blog entry, please provide your name and email address.

Archives

Categories