![\"Dielectric](\"https:\/\/sanyangmedical.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/iec-dielectric-hipot.png\")
<\/p>\nUnique Device Identification turned the device label into a data carrier. What used to be a model number and a lot code is now a structured identifier that must appear on the label, on the packaging and sometimes on the device itself, with data registered in a public database. For an importer, UDI is a document review item that either exists at the factory or becomes a delay at the border.<\/p>\n
This guide covers what UDI requires in practice, how it interacts with tender documentation, and what an importer should verify before a shipment. The labelling and localisation side of the same work is handled at production rather than after it.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
UDI has two components: a device identifier, which is specific to the model and the manufacturer, and a production identifier, which carries the lot, serial, expiry or manufacturing date. Together they form a machine-readable code that can be scanned at the point of use and traced through the supply chain.<\/p>\n
Labelling requirements mean the code must appear on the device label and on packaging in a form that survives handling, and for some device categories also on the device itself. The code quality matters: a barcode that cannot be read reliably at the bedside defeats the purpose, and print quality is a specification rather than a printing detail.<\/p>\n
Registration follows. The identifier data must be submitted to the relevant database, with the requirements for the United States set out in the device regulations published in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations<\/a>. In the EU, UDI data is registered in the European database under the Medical Device Regulation.<\/p>\n The most common problem is timing. UDI requirements phase in by class, and a product that did not need a code last year may need one now. Importers who assume the previous shipment’s documentation is still valid discover the change when a customs or tender review asks for the identifier.<\/p>\n The second is the mismatch between the label and the database entry. A device can carry a correct-looking code while the database record does not exist or carries different data, which is exactly the gap an audit looks for.<\/p>\n The third is artwork. Adding a code to a label requires a print-quality barcode, adequate contrast and enough space. Artwork updated in a hurry often produces a code that scans poorly, and the fix is a reprint rather than a software change.<\/p>\n Tenders increasingly ask for the UDI or for evidence of registration as part of the technical file. A bidder who can supply the identifier and the database reference immediately looks organised; one who has to check with the factory looks uncertain, and in a competitive tender that perception has a cost.<\/p>\n The practical preparation is a document pack per model: the label artwork showing the code, the database entry reference, and the correspondence that confirms the registration was completed. Keeping this pack current is a maintenance task, but a small one compared with a tender that fails on a technicality.<\/p>\n Where a programme spans markets, keep the packs separate. US and EU requirements are related but not identical, and mixing the documentation is how a correct product arrives with incorrect paperwork.<\/p>\n UDI is the anchor of a wider traceability practice: which devices were used in which procedures, what lot they came from, and what to do when a batch issue arises. Hospitals are increasingly asked to demonstrate this for accreditation, which pushes the requirement back up the chain to the supplier.<\/p>\n For equipment, traceability usually attaches to the accessories and consumables rather than to the capital item. That means the accessory labelling and lot control are the parts of the programme that need the most attention, not the machine nameplate.<\/p>\n The related note for buyers is that lot control and documentation should be specified at the order stage. Retrofitting traceability to a product already in the field is far more expensive than building it into the label during production. The general labelling and instruction-for-use expectations under MDR are covered in MDR labelling basics<\/a>, and the documentation an importer must verify is set out in MDR technical documentation<\/a>.<\/p>\n Verify four things: the label artwork carries a compliant code with adequate print quality; the identifier data is registered in the destination market’s database; the packaging carries the code where required; and the documentation pack for the model is current.<\/p>\n Ask the factory for the artwork and the database reference together, not separately. This forces the two to be checked against each other, which is where the mismatches appear. Where labels and marking are prepared with the production order, the work is handled by our OEM and localisation<\/a> team rather than by a post-production print run.<\/p>\nWhere Importers Get Caught<\/h2>\n
![\"Earth](\"https:\/\/sanyangmedical.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/iec-earth-bond.png\")
<\/p>\nUDI and Tender Documentation<\/h2>\n
Traceability Beyond the Label<\/h2>\n
What to Verify Before Shipping<\/h2>\n