126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24236833)
1. Reaction to the Brüstle decision.
Parker S; England P
Pharm Pat Anal; 2012 Jul; 1(3):233-5. PubMed ID: 24236833
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Brüstle decision is unhelpful, but not catastrophic.
Lawford Davies J; Denoon A
Cell Stem Cell; 2011 Dec; 9(6):500-1. PubMed ID: 22136924
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The author file: Oliver Brüstle.
Baker M
Nat Methods; 2012 Jun; 9(6):519. PubMed ID: 22874977
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. No patent-no therapy: a matter of moral and legal consistency within the European Union regarding the use of human embryonic stem cells.
Faltus T
Stem Cells Dev; 2014 Dec; 23 Suppl 1():56-9. PubMed ID: 25457964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Consternation and confusion following EU patent judgment.
Wilmut I
Cell Stem Cell; 2011 Dec; 9(6):498-9. PubMed ID: 22136922
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Sound and fury after stem cell ruling.
Holmes D
Lancet; 2011 Nov; 378(9803):1617. PubMed ID: 22066138
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Brüstle v. Greenpeace: implications for stem cell research.
Denoon A
Regen Med; 2011 Nov; 6(6 Suppl):85-7. PubMed ID: 21999267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Brüstle v. Greenpeace: Implications for Commercialisation of Translational Stem Cell Research.
Mansnérus J
Eur J Health Law; 2015 Apr; 22(2):141-64. PubMed ID: 26399054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Patent eligibility of stem cells in Europe: where do we stand after 8 years of case law?
Storz U; Faltus T
Regen Med; 2017 Jan; 12(1):37-51. PubMed ID: 27976982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Europe. Dismay, confusion greet human stem cell patent ban.
Vogel G
Science; 2011 Oct; 334(6055):441-2. PubMed ID: 22034406
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Brustle v Greenpeace, embryonic stem cell research and the European Court of Justice's new found morality.
Staunton C
Med Law Rev; 2013 Mar; 21(2):310-9. PubMed ID: 22871387
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The European Court of Justice's decision regarding the Brüstle patent and its implications for the legality of stem cell research within the European Union.
Heyer M; Spranger TM
Stem Cells Dev; 2013 Dec; 22 Suppl 1():50-3. PubMed ID: 24304076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Patents cannot be given for research methods that destroy healthy human embryos to obtain stem cells, German court rules.
Stafford N
BMJ; 2012 Dec; 345():e8248. PubMed ID: 23208269
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Europe rules against stem-cell patents.
Abbott A
Nature; 2011 Mar; 471(7338):280. PubMed ID: 21412307
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [Decision of the Justice Court (Great Chamber) of October 18, 2012 - Oliver Brüstle vs Greenpeace eV].
Rev Derecho Genoma Hum; 2011; (35):241-56. PubMed ID: 22984756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Patents on inventions related to human embryonic stem cells: the morality clause after Brüstle v. Greenpeace.
Panis S
Med Law; 2013 Sep; 32(3):347-72. PubMed ID: 24340486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Legal and regulatory news from Europe.
Hitchcock J
Stem Cells Dev; 2014 Dec; 23 Suppl 1():44-6. PubMed ID: 25457961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The European Court of Justice ruling in Brüstle v. Greenpeace: the impacts on patenting of human induced pluripotent stem cells in Europe.
Triller Vrtovec K; Scott CT
Cell Stem Cell; 2011 Dec; 9(6):502-3. PubMed ID: 22136925
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Defining "research" in the US and EU: contrast of Sherley v. Sebelius and Brüstle v. Greenpeace rulings.
Cuchiara ML; Lawford Davies J; Matthews KR
Stem Cell Rev Rep; 2013 Dec; 9(6):743-51. PubMed ID: 23912336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. EU bans embryonic stem cell patents but decision may have limited implications.
Harrison C
Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2011 Nov; 10(12):892-3. PubMed ID: 22076510
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
