241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10748506)
1. Opinions evolve on Kauffman patent.
Dove A
Nat Biotechnol; 2000 Apr; 18(4):373. PubMed ID: 10748506
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Supreme Court boosts licensees in biotech patent battles.
Waltz E
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Mar; 25(3):264-5. PubMed ID: 17344866
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Patenting DNA: just when you thought it was safe.
Chahine KG
Nat Biotechnol; 1997 Jun; 15(6):586-8. PubMed ID: 9181584
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Insulin patent dispute revisits old biotechnology battleground.
Fox JL
Nat Biotechnol; 1997 Apr; 15(4):307. PubMed ID: 9094114
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Intellectual property in higher life forms: the patent system and controversial technologies.
Merges RP
MD Law Rev; 1988; 47(4):1051-75. PubMed ID: 16514761
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Australia experiments with 'experimental use' exemption.
McBratney A; Nielsen K; McMillan F
Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Aug; 22(8):1023-5. PubMed ID: 15286651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. DNA patentability--anything but obvious.
Dillen JS
Wis L Rev; 1997; 5():1023-46. PubMed ID: 16329221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Patent due diligence in biotechnology transactions.
Gogoris AC; Clarke PJ
Nat Biotechnol; 2001 Mar; 19(3):279-81. PubMed ID: 11231565
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Super-enzyme patents get their day in court.
Cyranoski D
Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6909):767. PubMed ID: 12397315
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Patentable subject matter, TRIPS and the European Biotechnology Directive: Australia and patenting human genes.
Palombi L
Univ N S W Law J; 2003; 26(3):782-92. PubMed ID: 16617532
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. DNA-based patents: an empirical analysis.
Mills AE; Tereskerz P
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Sep; 26(9):993-5. PubMed ID: 18779808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Process patent bill on track.
Gershon D
Nature; 1993 Jul; 364(6435):274. PubMed ID: 8332176
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Roche faces charges over Taq patent claim.
Abbott A
Nature; 1996 Aug; 382(6593):660. PubMed ID: 8751427
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. India's IP snub.
Jayaraman KS
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Apr; 26(4):362. PubMed ID: 18392000
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Biotechnology inventions in the health care environment: what to patent and how to avoid defeat.
Murashige KR
Benders Health Care Law Mon; 1995 Dec; ():3-10. PubMed ID: 10158648
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Court leaves patent issue unclear.
Marshall E
Science; 1991 Oct; 254(5030):368. PubMed ID: 1925589
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Roche's Taq patent 'obtained by deceit', rules US court.
Dalton R
Nature; 1999 Dec; 402(6763):709. PubMed ID: 10617182
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Patent reform acts ugly.
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Nov; 25(11):1187. PubMed ID: 17989652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The new section 103(b) of the patent law: an obvious solution?
Van Horn CE; Barlow SA
Nat Biotechnol; 1996 Jun; 14(6):773-4. PubMed ID: 9630989
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Intellectual property. Depth charges aimed at Columbia's 'submarine patent'.
Marshall E
Science; 2003 Jul; 301(5632):448. PubMed ID: 12881539
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
