441 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15877055)
1. US court case to define EST patentability.
Lawrence S
Nat Biotechnol; 2005 May; 23(5):513. PubMed ID: 15877055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Ownership at too high a price?
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Sep; 21(9):953. PubMed ID: 12949537
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Biotechs sue Columbia over fourth Axel patent.
Howard K
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Sep; 21(9):955-6. PubMed ID: 12949538
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Biotechnology patents under fire.
Royzman I
Nat Biotechnol; 2015 Sep; 33(9):925-6. PubMed ID: 26348959
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Patenting the parts.
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Aug; 25(8):822. PubMed ID: 17687343
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Equivalents in biotechnology patents.
Auer HE
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Mar; 21(3):329-31. PubMed ID: 12610574
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. US courts narrow patent exemptions.
Fox JL
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Aug; 21(8):834. PubMed ID: 12894182
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The coming US patent opposition.
Apple T
Nat Biotechnol; 2005 Feb; 23(2):245-7. PubMed ID: 15696151
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The importance of getting inventorship right.
Sheiness D; Canady K
Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Feb; 24(2):153-4. PubMed ID: 16465154
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Napster case spills into biotech sector.
Bouchie A
Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Sep; 22(9):1185-6. PubMed ID: 15384189
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Is the viability of the Lilly doctrine on the decline?
Walker BW; Carty SM
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Aug; 21(8):943-4. PubMed ID: 12894207
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Determining the meaning of claim terms.
Auer HE
Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Jan; 24(1):41-3. PubMed ID: 16404391
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The 'Lilly doctrine' is viable and critical.
Caltrider SP; Kelley JJ
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Oct; 21(10):1131-2. PubMed ID: 14520388
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. A nail in the coffin for DNA sequence patents?
Yamanaka M
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Oct; 26(10):1085-6. PubMed ID: 18846072
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. India's IP snub.
Jayaraman KS
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Apr; 26(4):362. PubMed ID: 18392000
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Patenting pieces of people.
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Apr; 21(4):341. PubMed ID: 12665804
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Patentability of synthetic biology inventions in Europe.
Rutz B
Biotechnol J; 2010 Jan; 5(1):11-3. PubMed ID: 20069577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Patenting pluripotence: the next battle for stem cell intellectual property.
Vrtovec KT; Scott CT
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Apr; 26(4):393-5. PubMed ID: 18392018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Australia experiments with 'experimental use' exemption.
McBratney A; Nielsen K; McMillan F
Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Aug; 22(8):1023-5. PubMed ID: 15286651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. DNA patenting: the end of an era?
Hopkins MM; Mahdi S; Patel P; Thomas SM
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Feb; 25(2):185-7. PubMed ID: 17287750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
