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.
173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25502748)
21. Patent law--patent on life form--man-made modification of microorganism is patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101--Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 100 S.Ct. 2204 (1980). Vidas S Hamline Law Rev; 1981 Jan; 4(2):341-50. PubMed ID: 11650724 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology. Offit K; Bradbury A; Storm C; Merz JF; Noonan KE; Spence R J Clin Oncol; 2013 Jul; 31(21):2743-8. PubMed ID: 23766521 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. The patenting of novel biotech products. Webber PM IDrugs; 2007 Jul; 10(7):459-62. PubMed ID: 17642015 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The gene patenting controversy: a convergence of law, economic interests, and ethics. Kevles DJ; Berkowitz A Brooklyn Law Rev; 2001; 67(1):233-48. PubMed ID: 12645549 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Mayo's impact on patent applications related to biotechnology, diagnostics and personalized medicine. Aboy M; Crespo C; Liddell K; Minssen T; Liddicoat J Nat Biotechnol; 2019 May; 37(5):513-518. PubMed ID: 31053817 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: no obvious changes for the biotechnology market. Hinneschiedt CH Yale J Biol Med; 2007 Dec; 80(4):153-7. PubMed ID: 18449391 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. MYRIAD VOICES AGAINST GENE PATENTS IN THE HIGH COURT. McCallum L; Faunce T J Law Med; 2015 Dec; 23(2):322-9. PubMed ID: 26939499 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. What is your reasonable expectation of success in obtaining pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents having nonobvious claimed inventions that the courts will uphold? An overview of obviousness court decisions. Pereira DJ; Kunin SG Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med; 2014 Dec; 5(4):. PubMed ID: 25475106 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Patenting DNA: who defines and protects the public good? Garcia SA Am J Bioeth; 2002; 2(3):25-6. PubMed ID: 12230850 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Patent law--man-made, living microorganisms held patentable subject matter under section 101 of the Patent Act--Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). Faggen N Temple Law Q; 1981; 54(2):308-30. PubMed ID: 11652407 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Antibody-patent row could have far-reaching impact on biotech. Ledford H Nature; 2023 Apr; 616(7955):17. PubMed ID: 36977755 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Stealing fire: a retrospective survey of biotech patent claims in the wake of Mayo v. Prometheus. Haanes EJ; Cànaves JM Nat Biotechnol; 2012 Aug; 30(8):758-60. PubMed ID: 22871711 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Patentability of genetically engineered microorganisms. Cooper A JAMA; 1983 Mar; 249(12):1553-4. PubMed ID: 6338261 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]