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.
42. Implications of recent US Supreme Court IP ruling for nanomedicine patents. Kim KY Nanomedicine (Lond); 2008 Apr; 3(2):141-3. PubMed ID: 18373420 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. 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]
44. 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]
45. 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]
46. There is no better time than the present: nanotechnology as a disruptive innovation for drug development. Oo C; Tsai JC; Kao HD Drug Discov Today; 2015 Jun; 20(6):645-7. PubMed ID: 25835226 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. Are human genes patentable? The Supreme Court says yes and no. Golden JM; Sage WM Health Aff (Millwood); 2013 Aug; 32(8):1343-5. PubMed ID: 23918476 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Medical-process patents. Klein RD N Engl J Med; 2007 Feb; 356(7):753-4. PubMed ID: 17301313 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. US Supreme Court hears arguments in case of BRCA1 and BRCA2 [corrected] patents. McCarthy M BMJ; 2013 Apr; 346():f2446. PubMed ID: 23596230 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. US Supreme Court is asked to rule on validity of patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Dyer C BMJ; 2012 Oct; 345():e6624. PubMed ID: 23033368 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. The future of prenatal molecular diagnostics: impact of the changing patent landscape. Rachinsky TL Pharm Pat Anal; 2014 Jan; 3(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 24354971 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. US Supreme Court may have to settle dispute over patenting DNA sequences. Dyer C BMJ; 2011 Sep; 343():d6187. PubMed ID: 21952463 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. Intellectual property protection for plant innovation: unresolved issues after J.E.M. v. Pioneer. Janis MD; Kesan JP Nat Biotechnol; 2002 Nov; 20(11):1161-4. PubMed ID: 12410257 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. Much ado about gene patents: the role of foreseeability. Gulliford MJ Seton Hall Law Rev; 2004; 34(2):711-45. PubMed ID: 15115032 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. 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]
58. Science and law. The obvious war. Samardzija MR Science; 2007 Jan; 315(5809):190-1. PubMed ID: 17218511 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. 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] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]