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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17547356)

  • 1. Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd: implications of the supreme court's decision for the people who matter most...the consumer.
    Jaquette I
    Am J Law Med; 2007; 33(1):97-117. PubMed ID: 17547356
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Muddying the waters: how the Supreme Court's decision in Merck v. Integra fails to resolve problems of judicial interpretation of 35 U.S.C. Section 271(E)(1), the "safe harbor" provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act.
    Sertic M
    Health Matrix Clevel; 2007; 17(2):377-439. PubMed ID: 18326397
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Judicial developments in the US Hatch-Waxman infringement safe harbor.
    Swirnoff AH; Becker DM
    Expert Opin Ther Pat; 2010 Apr; 20(4):451-8. PubMed ID: 20302449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz: availability of generic glatiramer acetate and the impact to patent litigation claim construction.
    Fogel LE; Ray CJ
    Expert Opin Ther Pat; 2015 Jan; 25(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 25363310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Regulators can challenge deals that delay generic competition, says US Supreme Court.
    McCarthy M
    BMJ; 2013 Jun; 346():f3964. PubMed ID: 23783361
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The wake of FTC v. Actavis: practical implications on the pharmaceutical industry.
    Ritter M; Tempesta J; Ragusa P
    Pharm Pat Anal; 2014 Jul; 3(4):345-7. PubMed ID: 25291307
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Intellectual property. Drug patents at the Supreme Court.
    Hemphill CS; Sampat B
    Science; 2013 Mar; 339(6126):1386-7. PubMed ID: 23520096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Supreme Court to decide whether payments by patent holders to delay production of generics are anticompetitive.
    Roehr B
    BMJ; 2012 Dec; 345():e8464. PubMed ID: 23236054
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the biosimilars statute and the value of certainty.
    Royzman I; Monroe-Yavneh N
    Nat Biotechnol; 2017 Oct; 35(10):916-919. PubMed ID: 29019999
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. On access and accountability--two Supreme Court rulings on generic drugs.
    Boumil MM; Curfman GD
    N Engl J Med; 2013 Aug; 369(8):696-7. PubMed ID: 23923990
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Supreme Court's Latest Ruling on Drug Liability and its Implications for Future Failure-to-Warn Litigation.
    Morten CJ; Kesselheim AS; Ross JS
    J Law Med Ethics; 2019 Dec; 47(4):783-787. PubMed ID: 31957583
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Supreme Court rules in favor of 'pay-for-delay' settlements.
    Sklan A
    Pharm Pat Anal; 2013 Sep; 2(5):582-3. PubMed ID: 24386654
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The impact of Wyeth v. Levine on FDA regulation of prescription drugs.
    Ausness RC
    Food Drug Law J; 2010; 65(2):247-83, i-ii. PubMed ID: 24475542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Court rules generic drug companies not responsible for adverse outcomes.
    Kouros N
    Monash Bioeth Rev; 2013 Sep; 31(2):23-4. PubMed ID: 24844072
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Generics still unable to resolve ANDA patent issues by declaratory judgment, but is a supreme court resolution on the way?
    Eccleston LE
    Health Care Law Mon; 2006 Dec; ():3-5. PubMed ID: 17236678
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Hatch-Waxman Turns 30: Do We Need a Re-Designed Approach for the Modern Era?
    Kesselheim AS; Darrow JJ
    Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics; 2015; 15(2):293-347. PubMed ID: 26333236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How Will the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in North Carolina Dental Affect the Regulation of the Professions?
    LeBuhn R
    J Am Coll Dent; 2015; 82(3):18-20. PubMed ID: 26697650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. PLIVA v. Mensing: generic consumers' unfortunate hand.
    Lee SB
    Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics; 2012; 12(2):209-63. PubMed ID: 23175916
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Impossible? Outlawing state safety laws for generic drugs.
    Glantz LH; Annas GJ
    N Engl J Med; 2011 Aug; 365(8):681-3. PubMed ID: 21830958
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the supreme court's interpretation.
    Blake V
    Virtual Mentor; 2012 Jan; 14(1):31-4. PubMed ID: 23116914
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.