373 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26348959)
1. Biotechnology patents under fire.
Royzman I
Nat Biotechnol; 2015 Sep; 33(9):925-6. PubMed ID: 26348959
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. US court case to define EST patentability.
Lawrence S
Nat Biotechnol; 2005 May; 23(5):513. PubMed ID: 15877055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Ownership at too high a price?
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Sep; 21(9):953. PubMed ID: 12949537
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Biotechs sue Columbia over fourth Axel patent.
Howard K
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Sep; 21(9):955-6. PubMed ID: 12949538
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Equivalents in biotechnology patents.
Auer HE
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Mar; 21(3):329-31. PubMed ID: 12610574
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Recent Supreme Court decisions and licensing power.
Giordano-Coltart J; Calkins CW
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Feb; 26(2):183-5. PubMed ID: 18259170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Bio-patents, law and ethics. Critical analysis of the EU biotechnology directive.
Van Overwalle G
Rev Derecho Genoma Hum; 2003; (19):187-203. PubMed ID: 15032104
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Patenting the parts.
Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Aug; 25(8):822. PubMed ID: 17687343
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The prodigal son: the relationship between patent law and health care.
Bostyn SJ
Med Law Rev; 2003; 11(1):67-120. PubMed ID: 14606473
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The importance of getting inventorship right.
Sheiness D; Canady K
Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Feb; 24(2):153-4. PubMed ID: 16465154
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Foreword: what hath (not) Chakrabarty wrought: from the mouse that roared to Hello Dolly and beyond.
Yonover GJ
Valparaiso Univ Law Rev; 1998; 32(2):349-60. PubMed ID: 12710435
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Is the viability of the Lilly doctrine on the decline?
Walker BW; Carty SM
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Aug; 21(8):943-4. PubMed ID: 12894207
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Determining the meaning of claim terms.
Auer HE
Nat Biotechnol; 2006 Jan; 24(1):41-3. PubMed ID: 16404391
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The 'Lilly doctrine' is viable and critical.
Caltrider SP; Kelley JJ
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Oct; 21(10):1131-2. PubMed ID: 14520388
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. From human genes to stem cells: new challenges for patent law?
Caulfield TA
Trends Biotechnol; 2003 Mar; 21(3):101-3. PubMed ID: 12628363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. US courts narrow patent exemptions.
Fox JL
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Aug; 21(8):834. PubMed ID: 12894182
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. India's IP snub.
Jayaraman KS
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Apr; 26(4):362. PubMed ID: 18392000
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The coming US patent opposition.
Apple T
Nat Biotechnol; 2005 Feb; 23(2):245-7. PubMed ID: 15696151
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Napster case spills into biotech sector.
Bouchie A
Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Sep; 22(9):1185-6. PubMed ID: 15384189
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
