286 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20615184)
1. Strategies for strengthening patent protection of pharmaceutical inventions in light of federal court decisions.
Pillai X; Kinney WA
Curr Top Med Chem; 2010; 10(18):1929-36. PubMed ID: 20615184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: no obvious changes for the biotechnology market.
Hinneschiedt CH
Yale J Biol Med; 2007 Dec; 80(4):153-7. PubMed ID: 18449391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. KSR v. Teleflex. Part 1: Impact of U.S Supreme Court Patent Law on Canadian intellectual property and regulatory rights landscape.
Bouchard RA
Health Law J; 2007; 15():221-46. PubMed ID: 19702184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. What is your reasonable expectation of success in obtaining pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents having nonobvious claimed inventions that the courts will uphold? An overview of obviousness court decisions.
Pereira DJ; Kunin SG
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med; 2014 Dec; 5(4):. PubMed ID: 25475106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. DNA patentability--anything but obvious.
Dillen JS
Wis L Rev; 1997; 5():1023-46. PubMed ID: 16329221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Identification of the factors that result in obviousness rulings for biotech patents: an updated analysis of the US Federal Circuit decisions after KSR.
Lin F; Wang SJ
Hum Vaccin Immunother; 2013 Nov; 9(11):2490-5. PubMed ID: 23899509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Patentability of Stem Cells in the United States.
Fendrick SE; Zuhn DL
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med; 2015 Aug; 5(12):. PubMed ID: 26292987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Obviousness, hindsight and perspective: the impact of KSR v. Teleflex on biotech and pharmaceutical patents.
Teitelbaum R; Cohen M
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Oct; 25(10):1105-6. PubMed ID: 17921990
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Stem cell patents--reexamination/litigation--the last 5 years.
Shyntum Y; Kalkreuter E
Tissue Eng Part B Rev; 2009 Mar; 15(1):87-90. PubMed ID: 19260807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Competition policy in patent cases and antitrust.
Sobel G
Adv Genet; 2003; 50():23-64; discussion 507-10. PubMed ID: 14714685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Pharmaceutical patent life-cycle management after KSR v. Teleflex.
Furrow ME
Food Drug Law J; 2008; 63(1):275-320. PubMed ID: 18561462
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Take off your genes and let the doctor have a look: why the Mayo and Myriad decisions have invalidated method claims for genetic diagnostic testing.
Bergin C
Am Univ Law Rev; 2013; 63(1):173-217. PubMed ID: 25335200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Using the written description requirement to limit broad patent scope, allow competition, and encourage innovation in biotechnology.
Mull WC
Health Matrix Clevel; 2004; 14(2):393-435. PubMed ID: 15503695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Patentability of genetically engineered microorganisms.
Cooper A
JAMA; 1983 Mar; 249(12):1553-4. PubMed ID: 6338261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Patent protection of diagnostic technology: will recent US Supreme Court decisions change patent strategy?
Komatani TS
Pharm Pat Anal; 2015; 4(5):357-62. PubMed ID: 26451906
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Inventions in biotechnology and the assessment of obviousness.
Finney K
Australas Biotechnol; 1994; 4(5):280-3. PubMed ID: 7765674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Formulation patents and dermatology and obviousness.
Mei DF; Liu J; Davitz MA
Pharmaceutics; 2011 Nov; 3(4):914-22. PubMed ID: 24309313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prometheus: the Supreme Court redefines the patentability of diagnostic inventions.
Kumamoto A; Schmid CL
Recent Pat DNA Gene Seq; 2012 Dec; 6(3):193-6. PubMed ID: 22812581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
