Changes

{{cquote|In conclusion, the Guidance is not, by its terms [**36]  or by the FDA's interpretation, "legally binding" and, even if the FDA considered it as such, it would be irrelevant to the disposition of this action. ''See'' ''United States v. Regenerative Scis., LLC'', 741 F.3d 1314, 1322, 408 U.S. App. D.C. 259 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ("Appellants claim that the FDA seeks to give legal effect to a statement that was not promulgated through formal rule-making procedures . . . Our decision, however, is based on, and gives effect to, the Part 1271 Regulations, not the preamble. Appellants' procedural challenge to the preamble is therefore irrelevant."). Congress has delegated to the FDA substantial discretion in the regulation of drugs and biological products, its interpretation of § 1271.15(b) is neither facially inconsistent nor otherwise plainly erroneous and is historically consistent with the FDA's position regarding the regulation of HCTP's. Therefore, the FDA's interpretation of the same surgical procedure exception in 21 C.F.R. § 1271.15(b) is entitled to deference under Auer.9 519 U.S. 452, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79. Under this interpretation, "such HCT/P" implanted into the patient refers to all of the HCT/P removed from the patient in its original form, subject to limited handling. As Defendants' SVF therapy extracts adipose tissue, but only implants the SVF into the patient, after subjecting it to a specific and complex multi-step procedure, the HCT/P is no longer in its original form. Thus, the same surgical procedure exception does not and cannot apply to Defendants as a matter of law, and they are therefore subject to FDA regulation. As this is the sole issue on which Defendants move for summary judgment, the Court denies Defendants' Motion and grants the FDA's Motion on this issue.}}

{{cquote|In conclusion, the Guidance is not, by its terms [**36]  or by the FDA's interpretation, "legally binding" and, even if the FDA considered it as such, it would be irrelevant to the disposition of this action. ''See'' ''United States v. Regenerative Scis., LLC'', 741 F.3d 1314, 1322, 408 U.S. App. D.C. 259 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ("Appellants claim that the FDA seeks to give legal effect to a statement that was not promulgated through formal rule-making procedures . . . Our decision, however, is based on, and gives effect to, the Part 1271 Regulations, not the preamble. Appellants' procedural challenge to the preamble is therefore irrelevant."). Congress has delegated to the FDA substantial discretion in the regulation of drugs and biological products, its interpretation of § 1271.15(b) is neither facially inconsistent nor otherwise plainly erroneous and is historically consistent with the FDA's position regarding the regulation of HCTP's. Therefore, the FDA's interpretation of the same surgical procedure exception in 21 C.F.R. § 1271.15(b) is entitled to deference under Auer.9 519 U.S. 452, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79. Under this interpretation, "such HCT/P" implanted into the patient refers to all of the HCT/P removed from the patient in its original form, subject to limited handling. As Defendants' SVF therapy extracts adipose tissue, but only implants the SVF into the patient, after subjecting it to a specific and complex multi-step procedure, the HCT/P is no longer in its original form. Thus, the same surgical procedure exception does not and cannot apply to Defendants as a matter of law, and they are therefore subject to FDA regulation. As this is the sole issue on which Defendants move for summary judgment, the Court denies Defendants' Motion and grants the FDA's Motion on this issue.}}

''United States v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC'', 403 F. Supp. 3d 1279, 1296 (S.D. Fla. 2019).

''United States v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC'', 403 F. Supp. 3d 1279, 1296 (S.D. Fla. 2019).

== Analogous therapies ==

== Analogous therapies ==