249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11649615)
1. Biotechnology patent law developments in Great Britain and the United States: analysis of a hypothetical patent claim for a synthesized virus.
Auerbach BC
Boston College Int Comp Law Rev; 1983; 6(2):563-90. PubMed ID: 11649615
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. New life in US patents: the Chakrabarty case.
Daus DG
Eur Intellect Prop Rev; 1981 Jul; 3(7):194-200. PubMed ID: 11650711
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Patents for life forms: an inappropriate response to biotechnological advancement.
Densberger JE
J Bioeth; 1984; 5(2):91-115. PubMed ID: 11649700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Patent law--patent on life form--man-made modification of microorganism is patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101--Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 100 S.Ct. 2204 (1980).
Vidas S
Hamline Law Rev; 1981 Jan; 4(2):341-50. PubMed ID: 11650724
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Patent law--man-made, living microorganisms held patentable subject matter under section 101 of the Patent Act--Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
Faggen N
Temple Law Q; 1981; 54(2):308-30. PubMed ID: 11652407
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Building a better bacterium: genetic engineering and the patent law after Diamond v. Chakrabarty.
Krueger KG
Columbia Law Rev; 1981 Jan; 81(1):159-78. PubMed ID: 11650475
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The impact of biotechnology on patent law.
Plant DW
Technol Soc; 1983; 5(2):95-106. PubMed ID: 11650688
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Patent law--human-made, genetically engineered, living microorganism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" under Title 35 U.S.C. Sect. 101--Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 477 U.S. 303 (1980).
Harris RR
Miss Coll Law Rev; 1981 Jan; 2(2):161-73. PubMed ID: 11652412
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. An international comparative analysis of the patentability of recombinant DNA-derived organisms.
Sparrow CN
Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1981; 12(4):945-57. PubMed ID: 11649594
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Patent law: live, human-made microorganisms are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Sect. 101--Diamond v. Chakrabarty.
Namei FT
Univ Cincinnati Law Rev; 1980; 49(4):902-13. PubMed ID: 11650489
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Patentability of micro-organisms: Diamond v. Chakrabarty.
Burns K
Ark Law Rev; 1982; 35(2):313-27. PubMed ID: 11650697
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Patent protection for biological inventions--review of recent case law in EEC countries.
Vossius V
Eur Intellect Prop Rev; 1979 Oct; 1():278-82. PubMed ID: 11662912
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Are living organisms proper subject matter for a patent? United States Supreme Court to decide question of first impression in Parker v. Bergy.
Slade RJ; Van den Broder JM
West State Univ Law Rev; 1979; 7(1):125-131. PubMed ID: 11662797
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. An historical development of patenting microorganisms and genetically engineered animals in the USA and Europe.
McTaggart RJ
Eur J Genet Soc; 1996; 2(1):2-14. PubMed ID: 11658254
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Diamond v. Chakrabarty: scientist patents micro-organism--life forms considered patentable subject matter.
Kiernan JM
Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1980 Oct; 7(4):1038-51. PubMed ID: 11650472
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Diamond v. Chakrabarty: living things as statutory subject matter.
James ME
North Ill Univ Law Rev; 1980; 1(1):119-39. PubMed ID: 11650660
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Patents on life.
Byrne NJ
Eur Intellect Prop Rev; 1979 Nov; 1():297-300. PubMed ID: 11650635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The regulation of recombinant DNA research: the alternative of local control.
Rosenblatt DP
Boston Coll Environ Aff Law Rev; 1982; 10(1):37-78. PubMed ID: 11649694
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Patenting life is no guarantee of success.
Yanchinski S
New Sci; 1980 Jun; 86(1207):373. PubMed ID: 11664063
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Patenting animals and other living things.
O'Connor KW
South Calif Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 65(1):597-621. PubMed ID: 11645846
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
