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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18507356)

  • 1. Navigating the Safe Harbor: guidance from the courts on qualifying for the 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1) exemption from patent infringement of health care related inventions.
    Chickos SJ
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 2007; 24(1):43-68. PubMed ID: 18507356
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Patent tactics in molecular diversity: things that get around, come around (or: there are always exceptions to the rule).
    Bozicevic K
    Mol Divers; 1997-1998; 3(4):235-46. PubMed ID: 9850520
    [TBL] [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. 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]  

  • 5. Must an inventor "possess" an invention to patent it?
    Woessner WD; Chadwick RA
    Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med; 2014 Sep; 4(11):a020867. PubMed ID: 25237144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Navigating the Hatch-Waxman Act's safe harbor.
    Jones PB
    Food Drug Law J; 2002; 57(3):475-89. PubMed ID: 12710407
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. PMA primacy: synthesizing the 35 U.S.C. Section 156 patent term extension, 35 U.S.C. Section 271(e)(1) patent infringement exemption as currently applied to medical devices, and medical device preemption jurisprudence to yield a cohesive solution regarding scope of coverage.
    Flaherty JM
    Food Drug Law J; 2001; 56(3):339-49. PubMed ID: 11944643
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Patent infringement. Generic HIV drugmaker's patent claim is time-barred.
    AIDS Policy Law; 2003 Aug; 18(16):6. PubMed ID: 14626916
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Safe harbors in Europe: an update on the research and Bolar exemptions to patent infringement.
    Kupecz A; Roox K; Dekoninck C; Schertenleib D; Stief M; Sanna F; Orsingher M; Miralles S; Molina E; Crosse T; Gilbert M; James W
    Nat Biotechnol; 2015 Jul; 33(7):710-5. PubMed ID: 26154008
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Patent border wars: defining the boundary between scientific discoveries and patentable inventions.
    Holman CM
    Trends Biotechnol; 2007 Dec; 25(12):539-43. PubMed ID: 17983675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Introduction to Intellectual Property: A U.S. Perspective.
    Murphy A; Stramiello M; Lewis S; Irving T
    Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med; 2015 Mar; 5(8):a020776. PubMed ID: 25818665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Research use exemptions to patent infringement for drug discovery and development in the United States.
    Russo AA; Johnson J
    Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med; 2014 Oct; 5(2):a020933. PubMed ID: 25359549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Can the safe harbor of 35 U.S.C. section 271(e)(1) shelter pioneer drug manufacturers?
    Brinckerhoff CC
    Food Drug Law J; 1998; 53(4):643-59. PubMed ID: 10557582
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Will changes to patent infringements attract drug research in the UK?
    Snodin M
    Expert Opin Ther Pat; 2015; 25(9):949-51. PubMed ID: 25813963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Amendment to UK Patent Act provides further exception to patent infringement.
    Sklan A
    Pharm Pat Anal; 2014 Jul; 3(4):349. PubMed ID: 25291308
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Patent first, ask questions later: morality and biotechnology in patent law.
    Bagley MA
    William Mary Law Rev; 2003 Dec; 45(2):469-547. PubMed ID: 15570677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. US courts narrow patent exemptions.
    Fox JL
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Aug; 21(8):834. PubMed ID: 12894182
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. US courts struggle with new patent infringement standards.
    Jones P
    Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Apr; 22(4):461-3. PubMed ID: 15085803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.