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.
3. US Supreme Court rules on landmark gene patent case. Sklan A Pharm Pat Anal; 2013 Sep; 2(5):581. PubMed ID: 24237164 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Sequenom, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Personalized Medicine. Kodroff CA Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev; 2016 Jun; 27(2):49-52. PubMed ID: 27267566 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Gene patents remain controversial in biomedical research. Arnold C Lancet; 2013 Aug; 382(9891):495-6. PubMed ID: 23940849 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
11. Justices expand rights to experiment with patented drugs. Pollack A N Y Times Web; 2005 Jun; ():C1, C8. PubMed ID: 15966121 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. US personalized-medicine industry takes hit from Supreme Court. Ledford H Nature; 2016 Aug; 536(7617):382. PubMed ID: 27558042 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Invalidating human gene patenting: the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. Kalyvas J; Little AS World Neurosurg; 2013 Dec; 80(6):680-1. PubMed ID: 24134909 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. DNA patent decision leaves questions for diagnostics. Harrison C Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2011 Aug; 10(9):650-1. PubMed ID: 21878971 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Supreme Court to Myriad Genetics: Synthetic DNA is Patentable but Isolated Genes Are Not. Weinmeyer R; Klusty T AMA J Ethics; 2015 Sep; 17(9):849-53. PubMed ID: 26390207 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Patent drop reveals pressures on industry. Lawrence S Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Aug; 22(8):930-1. PubMed ID: 15286630 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]