What Should Companies Focus on for SaMD Registration After PMDA Updates Its SaMD Page?

Answer: After PMDA updated its Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) page in 2026, companies preparing SaMD registration in Japan should focus on confirming the software's intended use, whether it influences diagnostic or therapeutic decisions, risk classification, algorithm outputs, verification and validation, cybersecurity, version management, clinical or performance evidence, and Japan-specific regulatory communication requirements. A Japan submission should not simply be a translation of EU or U.S. software documentation; the software lifecycle and clinical use-scenario evidence should be reorganized around PMDA review concerns.

Article Information

Published: 2026-07-08 09:00; Updated: 2026-07-08 09:00

This FAQ focuses on international medical device registration, documentation preparation, compliance pathways, and post-market maintenance, and outlines the issues companies should prioritize in actual projects.

Key Summary

PMDA's 2026 update to its Software as a Medical Device page indicates that Japan continues to refine its regulation of software medical devices, digital health, and SaMD. Companies preparing Japanese SaMD registration should confirm intended use, whether the software affects diagnostic or therapeutic decisions, risk classification, algorithm outputs, verification and validation, cybersecurity, version management, clinical or performance evidence, and local regulatory communication requirements. A Japan project should not merely translate EU or U.S. software materials; instead, the software lifecycle and clinical use-scenario evidence should be reorganized according to PMDA review concerns.

Reference Basis

Official source: PMDA. Source link: https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/

This article is prepared based on official public information and AIMEILI international registration project experience. Specific pathways should still be determined according to product risk level, intended use, and the latest requirements of the regulatory authority.

Who Should Read This

This content is suitable for medical device manufacturers, regulatory affairs professionals, overseas market leads, and CRO teams preparing software and algorithm-based medical device projects. If a company already has China, EU, U.S., or other market documentation but is unsure whether it can be reused in the target market, it should also read this and complete a gap assessment before project initiation.

Regulatory Assessment Logic

Companies should first confirm the product's regulatory status, risk level, intended use, applicable regulatory pathway, and local responsible entity, and then determine the required depth of documentation. PMDA-related requirements generally do not review a single document in isolation; they also examine whether product claims, technical evidence, labeling and instructions for use, quality system, and post-market responsibilities are consistent.

Documentation Priorities

It is recommended to build a documentation package around product description, model specifications, risk management, performance verification, clinical or evaluation evidence, quality system, labeling and instructions for use, authorization documents, UDI or traceability information, change management, and post-market surveillance. For software, algorithm-based, IVD, sterile, active, and medium- to high-risk products, additional specialized evidence should be supplemented.

Operational Steps for Companies

• First, establish a product and model list.
• Second, reclassify according to the target market.
• Third, verify the coverage scope of existing certificates and test reports.
• Fourth, identify labeling, language, local representative, and post-market obligations.
• Fifth, form a gap list and supplementary documentation plan.
• Sixth, arrange translation, signing, submission, and responses to review questions.

Common Mistakes

• Directly translating domestic documentation.
• Ignoring the local responsible entity.
• Over-relying on existing CE or FDA documentation.
• Unclear product model coverage.
• Labeling claims exceeding the evidence scope.
• Missing post-market surveillance and change processes.

What regulators truly focus on is whether the evidence chain is closed, not the number of documents.

AIMEILI Professional Recommendations

AIMEILI recommends including this issue in the registration project initiation assessment, rather than supplementing documents only before submission. A more robust approach is to first complete pathway determination and documentation gap assessment, and then manage the target country, product classification, documentation reuse, additional testing, local representative, and post-market maintenance in a single project plan.

Internal Checklist

• Are product classification, intended use, and model scope clear?
• Do existing certificates, test reports, and technical files cover the submission scope?
• Are the responsibilities of the local representative, sponsor, or registration holder clear?
• Have labeling and instructions for use, UDI, language, and post-market maintenance been planned?
• Has a documentation gap list and supplementary testing plan been formed?
• Are official sources and applicability boundaries retained?

Continue Reading

• Previous: What submission strategies are affected after Singapore HSA updates its medical device grouping registration guide?
• Next: What impact does South Korea MFDS machine learning medical device clinical trial guidance have on companies?

Recommended Reading

• What impact does South Korea MFDS machine learning medical device clinical trial guidance have on companies?
• What should companies prepare before Australian TGA medical device registration?
• Can Singapore HSA medical device registration reuse CE documentation?
• What core documents are required for UAE MOHAP medical device registration?
• Why is the Brazilian ANVISA medical device registration cycle so long?
• What is the difference between a Vietnam medical device import license and registration certificate?

Return to FAQ Center

News & Insights

Contact AIMEILI

Content Review and Applicability Boundaries

Content author: AIMEILI Regulatory Editorial Team. Professional review: AIMEILI Medical Device International Registration Project Team. Source principle: priority is given to official regulatory authorities, international organizations, standards organizations, and public regulatory materials; industry media and project experience are used only as supplementary judgment. Applicability boundary: This article is intended for preliminary understanding, documentation preparation, and project planning. It does not replace the formal requirements of the target country's regulatory authority, testing conclusions, or legal advice.