235 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12710435)
21. 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]
22. US Supreme Court applies strict limits to patents.
Robertson D
Nat Biotechnol; 2002 Jul; 20(7):639. PubMed ID: 12089532
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Intellectual property. Supreme Court to review the scope of Monsanto's seed patents.
Marshall E
Science; 2013 Feb; 339(6120):639. PubMed ID: 23393238
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. US court case to define EST patentability.
Lawrence S
Nat Biotechnol; 2005 May; 23(5):513. PubMed ID: 15877055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Microorganism patents.
Behringer JW
J Pat Off Soc; 1981 Mar; 63(3):128-37. PubMed ID: 11650632
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Patents. U.S. Supreme Court delves into what is and isn't patentable.
Marshall E
Science; 2009 Jun; 324(5933):1374. PubMed ID: 19520926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. The human use of humanoid beings: chimeras and patent law.
Rabin S
Nat Biotechnol; 2006 May; 24(5):517-9. PubMed ID: 16680130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The Supreme Court and patenting life.
Hastings Cent Rep; 1980 Oct; 10(5):10-5. PubMed ID: 6934170
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Genetics and law: a challenge for lawyers and judges in the new millennium.
Chin MW
Not Polit; 2002; 18(65):103-15. PubMed ID: 15505919
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Intellectual property. What good is a patent? Supreme Court may suggest an answer.
Kintisch E
Science; 2006 Feb; 311(5763):946-7. PubMed ID: 16484470
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Patents, biotechnology, and hematologic pathology.
Kettelberger DM; Gambrell P; McClung G
Hematol Pathol; 1992; 6(2):99-104. PubMed ID: 1607346
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Rhône-Poulenc rounds up DeKalb and Monsanto.
Fox JL
Nat Biotechnol; 1997 Dec; 15(13):1332. PubMed ID: 9415877
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Intellectual property protection for plant innovation: unresolved issues after J.E.M. v. Pioneer.
Janis MD; Kesan JP
Nat Biotechnol; 2002 Nov; 20(11):1161-4. PubMed ID: 12410257
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Recent Supreme Court decisions and licensing power.
Giordano-Coltart J; Calkins CW
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Feb; 26(2):183-5. PubMed ID: 18259170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A legal perspective on humanity, personhood, and species boundaries.
Glenn LM
Am J Bioeth; 2003; 3(3):27-8. PubMed ID: 14594479
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Intellectual property protection for plant-related inventions in Europe.
Fleck B; Baldock C
Nat Rev Genet; 2003 Oct; 4(10):834-8. PubMed ID: 14526379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Medical-process patents.
Klein RD
N Engl J Med; 2007 Feb; 356(7):753-4. PubMed ID: 17301313
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
