FDA Announces Availability of Decision Tool and SPL Xforms For MoCRA Facility Registration and Product Listings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.12.24
On January 8, 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that SPL Xforms, a Structured Product Labeling authoring tool, is now available as an additional option for completing facility registration and product listings mandated by the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA). As a result, companies may submit their facility registration(s) and product listing(s) in one of four ways:
-
- FDA Direct;
- Electronic Submissions Gateway;
- SPL Xforms; and
- Paper Submissions via FDA Form 5066 (Facility Registration) and FDA Form 5067 (Product Listing).
Completed paper submissions can be emailed to RLC-PaperSubmissions@fda.hhs.gov or mailed to the following address:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Office of Cosmetics and Colors
Registration and Listing of Cosmetic Product Facilities and Products Program
5001 Campus Drive, CPK1, Room 1B-046
College Park, MD 20740-3835.
The FDA indicated that it does not intend to enforce the facility registration and product listing requirements until July 1, 2024. Nevertheless, companies are now able to submit this information and are encouraged to do so in advance of the July 1, 2024 enforcement deadline.
The FDA’s Decision Tool should also be of help to cosmetics companies who are still trying to determine whether to register one or more facility.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25


