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.
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. U.S. Supreme Court decision paves way for better genetic testing: ruling bars exclusive licensing, patents on naturally occurring genes. Levenson D Am J Med Genet A; 2013 Sep; 161A(9):ix-x. PubMed ID: 23946205 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Supreme Court will rule on whether patents for BRAC1 and BRAC2 genes are valid. Dyer C BMJ; 2012 Dec; 345():e8266. PubMed ID: 23223689 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Who owns human genes?: Is DNA patentable? Gostin LO JAMA; 2013 Aug; 310(8):791-2. PubMed ID: 23877839 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. [The Supreme Court free genes - economic and legal justifications - impacts on innovation and the healthcare offer]. Cassier M; Stoppa-Lyonnet D Med Sci (Paris); 2015 Feb; 31(2):209-13. PubMed ID: 25744269 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. After the Myriad decision: do hurdles remain for diagnostics competition? Waller PR; Young DW MLO Med Lab Obs; 2013 Sep; 45(9):46. PubMed ID: 24147337 [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. Diagnostic method patents and harms to follow-on innovation. Harv Law Rev; 2013 Mar; 126(5):1370-91. PubMed ID: 25330558 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Data disclosure crucial after DNA patent verdict. de Costa A Science; 2013 Aug; 341(6149):959. PubMed ID: 23990544 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Sequenom v. Ariosa - The Death of a Genetic Testing Patent. Cook-Deegan R; Chandrasekharan S N Engl J Med; 2016 Dec; 375(25):2418-2419. PubMed ID: 28002697 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Intellectual property. Supreme Court rules out patents on 'natural' genes. Marshall E Science; 2013 Jun; 340(6139):1387-8. PubMed ID: 23788772 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories: The Supreme Court listens, but declines to speak. Klein RD; Mahoney MJ J Law Med Ethics; 2008; 36(1):141-9, 4. PubMed ID: 18315767 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]