207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24687057)
1. US Patent Office issues guidelines on natural product patent eligibility.
Harrison C
Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2014 Apr; 13(4):250. PubMed ID: 24687057
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Isolated DNA patent ban creates muddy waters for biomarkers and natural products.
Harrison C
Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2013 Aug; 12(8):570-1. PubMed ID: 23903213
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The end of DNA patents in the United States?
Webber P
Expert Opin Ther Pat; 2013 Dec; 23(12):1525-7. PubMed ID: 24138004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Intellectual property. Biotech feels a chill from changing U.S. patent rules.
Servick K
Science; 2014 Jul; 345(6192):14-5. PubMed ID: 24994626
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Patent watch: US Supreme Court revises patent claim construction standards.
Noonan K
Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2015 Mar; 14(3):157. PubMed ID: 25722233
[No 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. 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]
9. Intellectual property. U.S. patent office reworks unpopular policy.
Servick K
Science; 2015 Jan; 347(6218):113. PubMed ID: 25573998
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Mayo, Myriad, America Invents Act and BPCIA: how has the United States biopharmaceutical market been affected?
Finston SK; Davey NS; Davé E; Ravichandran V; Davey SR; Davé RS
Pharm Pat Anal; 2016 May; 5(3):159-67. PubMed ID: 27087460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Next-generation sequencing may challenge antibody patent claims.
Ponraj P
Nature; 2018 May; 557(7704):166. PubMed ID: 29743696
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Patent watch: Supreme Court decision impacts the strength of US patents.
Brinckerhoff CC
Nat Rev Drug Discov; 2016 Jul; 15(8):524. PubMed ID: 27469227
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Bilski v. Kappos: the US Supreme Court broadens patent subject-matter eligibility.
Simmons WJ
Nat Biotechnol; 2010 Aug; 28(8):801-5. PubMed ID: 20697402
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Three recent US patent decisions.
Kershen DL
GM Crops Food; 2013; 4(3):122-5. PubMed ID: 23970059
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Intellectual property. What good is a patent? Supreme Court may suggest an answer.
Kintisch E
Science; 2006 Feb; 311(5763):946-7. PubMed ID: 16484470
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. KSR v. Teleflex. Part 2: Impact of U.S Supreme Court Patent Law on Canadian and global systems-based innovation ecologies.
Bouchard RA
Health Law J; 2007; 15():247-94. PubMed ID: 19702185
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Supreme Court boosts licensees in biotech patent battles.
Waltz E
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Mar; 25(3):264-5. PubMed ID: 17344866
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Use patents, carve-outs, and incentives--a new battle in the drug-patent wars.
Rai A
N Engl J Med; 2012 Aug; 367(6):491-3. PubMed ID: 22873529
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Monsters at the patent office: the inconsistent conclusions of moral utility and the controversy of human cloning.
Smith AR
De Paul Law Rev; 2003; 53(1):159-203. PubMed ID: 15568254
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Supreme Court decision on patent for HIV test unlikely to set major precedent.
Waters H
Nat Med; 2011 Jul; 17(7):758. PubMed ID: 21738136
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
