These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10586857)

  • 21. HIV/AIDS. Tangled patent dispute over 'free' drug-resistance database.
    Cohen J
    Science; 2009 Feb; 323(5918):1156-7. PubMed ID: 19251598
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Biotech patents-business as usual?
    Lawrence S
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Dec; 26(12):1326. PubMed ID: 19060861
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Biotechnology patents under fire.
    Royzman I
    Nat Biotechnol; 2015 Sep; 33(9):925-6. PubMed ID: 26348959
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. US court case to define EST patentability.
    Lawrence S
    Nat Biotechnol; 2005 May; 23(5):513. PubMed ID: 15877055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The importance of getting inventorship right.
    Sheiness D; Canady K
    Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Feb; 24(2):153-4. PubMed ID: 16465154
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. No room for experiment: the Federal Circuit's narrow construction of the experimental use defense.
    Ludwig SP; Chumney JC
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Apr; 21(4):453. PubMed ID: 12665827
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Is the viability of the Lilly doctrine on the decline?
    Walker BW; Carty SM
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Aug; 21(8):943-4. PubMed ID: 12894207
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Determining the meaning of claim terms.
    Auer HE
    Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Jan; 24(1):41-3. PubMed ID: 16404391
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The 'Lilly doctrine' is viable and critical.
    Caltrider SP; Kelley JJ
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Oct; 21(10):1131-2. PubMed ID: 14520388
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Company accused over lab data 'theft'.
    Dalton R
    Nature; 1997 May; 387(6632):444. PubMed ID: 9168098
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Hatch-waxman changes debated.
    Chahine K
    Nat Biotechnol; 2000 Jul; 18(7):710-1. PubMed ID: 10888831
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. US courts narrow patent exemptions.
    Fox JL
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Aug; 21(8):834. PubMed ID: 12894182
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. India's IP snub.
    Jayaraman KS
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Apr; 26(4):362. PubMed ID: 18392000
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Intellectual property. NIH roils academe with advice on licensing DNA patents.
    Malakoff D
    Science; 2004 Mar; 303(5665):1757-8. PubMed ID: 15031474
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Rush to protect lucrative antibody patents kicks into gear.
    Ledford H
    Nature; 2018 May; 557(7707):623-624. PubMed ID: 29844545
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Napster case spills into biotech sector.
    Bouchie A
    Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Sep; 22(9):1185-6. PubMed ID: 15384189
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The coming US patent opposition.
    Apple T
    Nat Biotechnol; 2005 Feb; 23(2):245-7. PubMed ID: 15696151
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Indirect infringement.
    Becker DM
    Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2006 Mar; 5(3):181. PubMed ID: 16557655
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Patent rights and the free research. The boundary between basic research and private sector is not longer razor-sharp].
    Westerlund L
    Lakartidningen; 2005 Sep 26-Oct 2; 102(39):2737. PubMed ID: 16245544
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. CRISPR, surrogate licensing, and scientific discovery.
    Contreras JL; Sherkow JS
    Science; 2017 Feb; 355(6326):698-700. PubMed ID: 28209863
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.