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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

272 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16465154)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Equivalents in biotechnology patents.
    Auer HE
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Mar; 21(3):329-31. PubMed ID: 12610574
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Determining the meaning of claim terms.
    Auer HE
    Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Jan; 24(1):41-3. PubMed ID: 16404391
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Ownership at too high a price?
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Sep; 21(9):953. PubMed ID: 12949537
    [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. India's IP snub.
    Jayaraman KS
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Apr; 26(4):362. PubMed ID: 18392000
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. US court case to define EST patentability.
    Lawrence S
    Nat Biotechnol; 2005 May; 23(5):513. PubMed ID: 15877055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The coming US patent opposition.
    Apple T
    Nat Biotechnol; 2005 Feb; 23(2):245-7. PubMed ID: 15696151
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Napster case spills into biotech sector.
    Bouchie A
    Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Sep; 22(9):1185-6. PubMed ID: 15384189
    [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. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Biotechnology patents under fire.
    Royzman I
    Nat Biotechnol; 2015 Sep; 33(9):925-6. PubMed ID: 26348959
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The obviousness rejection as a barrier to biotech patent prosecution.
    Wang SJ
    Nat Biotechnol; 2009 Dec; 27(12):1125-6. PubMed ID: 20010590
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Inter partes reexamination: a potentially useful approach to challenging invalid biotechnology patents.
    Derzko NM; Behringer JW
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Jul; 21(7):823-5. PubMed ID: 12833101
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Cabilly patent finale.
    Waltz E
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Aug; 26(8):846. PubMed ID: 18688222
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.