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.
141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11650563)
1. Philosopher's paradise: should a microorganism the product of a microbiologist be patentable? Clark S Auckl Univ Law Rev; 1981 Jul; 4(2):129-50. PubMed ID: 11650563 [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]
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. 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]
6. Diamond v. Chakrabarty: oil eaters--alive and patentable. Walsh DJ Pepperdine Law Rev; 1981; 8(3):747-81. PubMed ID: 11650496 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Live, human-made bacteria as patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101: Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Jensen BJ Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1980; 1980(3):705-19. PubMed ID: 11650474 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Patents, PWR and scientific zones. Dalyell T New Sci; 1984 May; 102(1409):46. PubMed ID: 11655603 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Patenting life. Washington Post; 1980 Jun; ():A20. PubMed ID: 11646333 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Where was Chakrabarty's bug? Science; 1989 May; 244(4907):919. PubMed ID: 11644372 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Microorganism patents. Behringer JW J Pat Off Soc; 1981 Mar; 63(3):128-37. PubMed ID: 11650632 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Ethical and legal issues in patenting new animal life. Dresser R Jurimetrics; 1988; 28(4):399-435. PubMed ID: 11652544 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Multicellular vertebrate mammals as "patentable subject matter" under 35 U.S.C. Sect. 101: promotion of science and the useful arts or an open invitation for abuse? Landau MB Dickinson Law Rev; 1993; 97(2):203-26. PubMed ID: 11652689 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]