309 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16389678)
1. Patents, patients, and public policy: an incomplete intersection at 35 U.S.C. Section 287(c).
Ho CM
Univ Calif Davis Law Rev; 2000; 33(3):601-75. PubMed ID: 16389678
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Patients v. patents?: policy implications of recent patent legislation.
Katopis CJ
St Johns Law Rev; 1997; 71():329-401. PubMed ID: 11658166
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 364 May 2007. Patents, medicine, and the interests of patients.
Committees on Ethics and Genetics of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Obstet Gynecol; 2007 May; 109(5):1249-54. PubMed ID: 17470613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Equivalents in biotechnology patents.
Auer HE
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Mar; 21(3):329-31. PubMed ID: 12610574
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. US courts narrow patent exemptions.
Fox JL
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Aug; 21(8):834. PubMed ID: 12894182
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Patent law--balancing profit maximization and public access to technology.
Beckerman-Rodau A
Columbia Sci Technol Law Rev; 2003; 4():E1. PubMed ID: 15977333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Determining the meaning of claim terms.
Auer HE
Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Jan; 24(1):41-3. PubMed ID: 16404391
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Ownership at too high a price?
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Sep; 21(9):953. PubMed ID: 12949537
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. India's IP snub.
Jayaraman KS
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Apr; 26(4):362. PubMed ID: 18392000
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. US court case to define EST patentability.
Lawrence S
Nat Biotechnol; 2005 May; 23(5):513. PubMed ID: 15877055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Napster case spills into biotech sector.
Bouchie A
Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Sep; 22(9):1185-6. PubMed ID: 15384189
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The coming US patent opposition.
Apple T
Nat Biotechnol; 2005 Feb; 23(2):245-7. PubMed ID: 15696151
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Licensing research tool patents.
Flattmann GJ; Kaplan JM
Nat Biotechnol; 2002 Sep; 20(9):945-7. PubMed ID: 12205511
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
