311 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15956629)
21. Hatch-waxman changes debated.
Chahine K
Nat Biotechnol; 2000 Jul; 18(7):710-1. PubMed ID: 10888831
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Robert Stoll. Interview by Charlotte Harrison.
Stoll R
Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2009 Dec; 8(12):926. PubMed ID: 19949397
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Obviousness, hindsight and perspective: the impact of KSR v. Teleflex on biotech and pharmaceutical patents.
Teitelbaum R; Cohen M
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Oct; 25(10):1105-6. PubMed ID: 17921990
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. [Technology transfer between academic laboratories and industrial laboratories: licensing].
Salauze D
Ann Pharm Fr; 2010 Sep; 68(5):301-5. PubMed ID: 20850001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. US courts narrow patent exemptions.
Fox JL
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Aug; 21(8):834. PubMed ID: 12894182
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Cabilly patent finale.
Waltz E
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Aug; 26(8):846. PubMed ID: 18688222
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Proposed changes to patent code loom over biotech industry.
Coombs A
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Dec; 25(12):1333-4. PubMed ID: 18066010
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Research interactions between industry and academia: a corporate perspective.
Citron P
Physiologist; 1996 Jun; 39(3):81, 90-2. PubMed ID: 16764116
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Encouraging further innovation: Ariad v. Eli Lilly and the written description requirement.
Jakas J
Seton Hall Law Rev; 2012; 42(3):1287-36. PubMed ID: 22803220
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Intellectual property. Decision on NFkappaB patent could have broad implications for biotech.
Garber K
Science; 2006 May; 312(5775):827. PubMed ID: 16690824
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Roche faces charges over Taq patent claim.
Abbott A
Nature; 1996 Aug; 382(6593):660. PubMed ID: 8751427
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. A guide to drug discovery. Protecting your inventions: the patent system.
Webber PM
Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2003 Oct; 2(10):823-30. PubMed ID: 14526385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Intellectual property and biotechnology: the U.S. internal experience--Part II.
Brody B
Kennedy Inst Ethics J; 2006 Jun; 16(2):105-28. PubMed ID: 17036443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The ITC as an attractive patent litigation forum for the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry.
Burton CA; Margonis LE
Pharm Pat Anal; 2013 Mar; 2(2):177-80. PubMed ID: 24237023
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Protection for manufacturing, not research.
Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2003 Oct; 2(10):766. PubMed ID: 14579809
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Justices expand rights to experiment with patented drugs.
Pollack A
N Y Times Web; 2005 Jun; ():C1, C8. PubMed ID: 15966121
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Beyond the letter of the law: the US Federal Circuit interprets section 271(g)(1).
Tsao R; Hurley EA
Nat Biotechnol; 1997 Jan; 15(1):86-7. PubMed ID: 9035112
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Biotechnology patent disputes. Market machinations.
Gershon D
Nature; 1990 Apr; 344(6269):800. PubMed ID: 2330035
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. India's IP snub.
Jayaraman KS
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Apr; 26(4):362. PubMed ID: 18392000
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The role of the private sector in biotechnology: research and development.
Feisee L
Health Matrix Clevel; 2002; 12(2):357-65. PubMed ID: 12430359
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
