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. Who deserves the patent pot of gold?: an inquiry into the proper inventorship of patient-based discoveries. Ho CM DePaul J Health Care Law; 2004; 7(2):185-243. PubMed ID: 15675072 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property law. Feldman R Stanford Law Rev; 2011 Jun; 63(6):1377-402. PubMed ID: 21774193 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Planning your taxes in UK. Brien J; Forker H Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Jun; 25(6):621-2. PubMed ID: 17679152 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Biotechnology: a challenge for Hippocrates. Huynen S Auckl Univ Law Rev; 1991; 6(4):534-51. PubMed ID: 16127862 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Patenting life: a view from the constitution and beyond. Schneider CA; Cohn F; Bonner C Whittier Law Rev; 2002; 24(2):385-416. PubMed ID: 15085853 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Ownership at too high a price? Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Sep; 21(9):953. PubMed ID: 12949537 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. A license to print money? Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Jun; 24(6):593. PubMed ID: 16763570 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Material witness: patent pending. Ball P Nat Mater; 2003 Jun; 2(6):365. PubMed ID: 12776101 [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. Cloning human organs: potential sources and property implications. Hilmert LJ Indiana Law J; 2002; 77(2):363-87. PubMed ID: 15174442 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Owning the secret of life: biotechnology and property rights revisited. Yelpaala K McGeorge Law Rev; 2000; 32(1):111-219. PubMed ID: 15709267 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Moore v. Regents of the University of California: patients, property rights, and public policy. Biagi KG St Louis Univ Law J; 1991; 35(2):433-62. PubMed ID: 16144099 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Brand: a company's most valuable asset. Carter S Med Device Technol; 2004 Jun; 15(5):11. PubMed ID: 15285479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Proprietary rights in body parts: the relevance of Moore's case in Australia. Mortimer D Monash Univ Law Rev; 1993; 19(1):217-25. PubMed ID: 17333577 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Human tissue research: is legislation needed? Leadbeatter S Br J Hosp Med; 1994 Feb 2-15; 51(3):132-3. PubMed ID: 8193840 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Security interests in human materials. Smith KH Hofstra Law Rev; 1999; 28(1):127-84. PubMed ID: 12769117 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Biotechnology and the new property regime in human bodies and body parts. Nwabueze RN Loyola Los Angel Int Comp Law J; 2002 Jan; 24(1):19-64. PubMed ID: 12769112 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]