143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11650688)
1. The impact of biotechnology on patent law.
Plant DW
Technol Soc; 1983; 5(2):95-106. PubMed ID: 11650688
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
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. Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research.
Eisenberg RS
Yale Law J; 1987 Dec; 97(2):177-231. PubMed ID: 11660398
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. University/corporate research agreements.
Hutt PB
Technol Soc; 1983; 5(2):107-18. PubMed ID: 11650686
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Patent absurdities.
Shulman S
Sciences (New York); 1999; 39(1):30-3. PubMed ID: 11657926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Patenting of life forms.
Pautler G
Trial; 1982 Apr; 18(4):47-50, 76. PubMed ID: 11649513
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Patenting life.
Kass LR
Commentary; 1981 Dec; 72(6):45-57. PubMed ID: 11649383
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Patent law--life forms found to be within the ambit of Section 101 of the Patent Code.
Wolfe CH
Cumberland Law Rev; 1980-1981; 11(3):775-98. PubMed ID: 11650571
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Patent law: patentability of micro-organisms.
Brennan AA
Akron Law Rev; 1980; 14(2):341-9. PubMed ID: 11650627
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Gene engineering: patent for products.
Miller JA
Sci News; 1984 Sep; 126(10):150. PubMed ID: 11653590
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Gene patent granted: now the real fight begins.
Anderson I
New Sci; 1984 Sep; 103(1420):7. PubMed ID: 11655626
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Owning our bodies: an examination of property law and biotechnology.
Gold R
San Diego Law Rev; 1995; 32(4):1167-247. PubMed ID: 11656846
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Designer genes and patent law: a good fit.
Bloom A
NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1981; 26(4):1041-57. PubMed ID: 11652442
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Patenting the human genome.
Eisenberg RS
Emory Law J; 1990; 39(3):721-45. PubMed ID: 11653907
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
