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.
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, PWR and scientific zones. Dalyell T New Sci; 1984 May; 102(1409):46. PubMed ID: 11655603 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Patenting transgenic human embryos: a nonuse cost perspective. Burk DL Houst Law Rev; 1993; 30(4):1597-669. PubMed ID: 11659869 [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. Patenting life. Washington Post; 1980 Jun; ():A20. PubMed ID: 11646333 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Microorganism patents. Behringer JW J Pat Off Soc; 1981 Mar; 63(3):128-37. PubMed ID: 11650632 [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. 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]
13. Of mice and machine: a paradigmatic challenge to interpretation of the patent statute. Chiapetta JR William Mitchell Law Rev; 1994; 20(1):155-90. PubMed ID: 11652852 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. The commercialization of human tissue -- the source of legal, ethical and social problems: an area better suited to legislative resolution. O'Connor JJ Loyola Los Angel Law Rev; 1990 Nov; 24(1):115-69. PubMed ID: 11659354 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Proposals on genetic technology: U.S. panel urges easing of regulation. Andrews EL N Y Times Web; 1991 Feb; ():D1, D7. PubMed ID: 11646818 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]