216 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16525384)
1. Ten years of biotech gaffes.
Hodgson J
Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Mar; 24(3):270-3. PubMed ID: 16525384
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Errors in patent application sequence listings.
Jones R
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Oct; 21(10):1239-40. PubMed ID: 14520406
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Publish and perish: what constitutes a bar under the patent laws.
Teitelbaum R; Cohen MS
Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Nov; 22(11):1449-51. PubMed ID: 15529168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The coming US patent opposition.
Apple T
Nat Biotechnol; 2005 Feb; 23(2):245-7. PubMed ID: 15696151
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The level of disclosure necessary for patent protection of genetic innovations.
Berman RJ; El Schoenhard A
Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Oct; 22(10):1307-8. PubMed ID: 15470468
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Brussels takes EU states to court over biopatent law.
Habeck M
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Sep; 21(9):960. PubMed ID: 12949544
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. New guidance on the patentability of embryonic stem cell patents in Europe.
Fitt R
Nat Biotechnol; 2009 Apr; 27(4):338-9. PubMed ID: 19352367
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Patents: patenting of stem cell related inventions in Europe.
Rutz B; Yeats S
Biotechnol J; 2006 Apr; 1(4):384-7. PubMed ID: 16892264
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The prevalence of patent interferences in gene technology.
Merz JF; Henry MR
Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Feb; 22(2):153-4. PubMed ID: 14755283
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Time waits for no man: deciding when to file a patent application in Europe.
White NL
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Jun; 25(6):639-41. PubMed ID: 17557096
[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. Past versus present: the importance of tense in patent application examples.
Potter JE; Talukder G
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Nov; 21(11):1397-8. PubMed ID: 14595370
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Lords panel backs ethical barriers to biotech patents.
Nature; 1994 Mar; 368(6469):278. PubMed ID: 8127355
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Genomics companies welcome US PTO initiative on DNA patents.
Marshall A
Nat Biotechnol; 1997 Feb; 15(2):121-2. PubMed ID: 9035129
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Bush domestic security proposal affects range of biotech programs.
Fox JL
Nat Biotechnol; 2002 Jul; 20(7):643. PubMed ID: 12089536
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Biotech patents-business as usual?
Lawrence S
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Dec; 26(12):1326. PubMed ID: 19060861
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. A level playing field for intellectual property enforcement.
Carter S
Med Device Technol; 2004 May; 15(4):11. PubMed ID: 15303555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biotech patents: the world is your oyster--or mouse--or (you name it).
Alix JE
Technol Health Care; 1996 Sep; 4(3):255-8. PubMed ID: 8931235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. EU states back biotech patent reforms.
Dickson D; Butler D
Nature; 1993 Dec 23-30; 366(6457):713. PubMed ID: 8264788
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
