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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26665350)

  • 1. The Court of Justice of the European Union changes its case law on patentability of human embryonic stem cells.
    Bonadio E; Rovati AM
    Rev Derecho Genoma Hum; 2015; (42):161-7. PubMed ID: 26665350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Patentability of Parthenogenic Stem Cells: International Stem Cell Corporation v. Comptroller General of Patents.
    Mansnérus J
    Eur J Health Law; 2015 Jun; 22(3):267-86. PubMed ID: 26399046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. [Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union on embryonic stem cell patents. On a legal report on patents: the concept and dignity of the human embryo].
    Lacadena JR
    Rev Derecho Genoma Hum; 2011; (35):145-80. PubMed ID: 22984753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. European Court of Justice. ECJ 2015/2, International Stem Cell Corporation v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, 18 December 2014 (C-364/13).
    Baeyens A; Goffin T
    Eur J Health Law; 2015 Apr; 22(2):199-203. PubMed ID: 26399060
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. [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]  

  • 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. [The Brüstle v. Greenpeace case and the end of pre-implantation embryos discrimination].
    Albert M
    Cuad Bioet; 2013; 24(82):475-98. PubMed ID: 24483320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. European Court of Justice: ECJ 2011/01, Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace e. V., 18 October 2011 (Case C-34/10).
    Baeyens A; Goffin T
    Eur J Health Law; 2012 Mar; 19(1):101-6. PubMed ID: 22428395
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Chapter 4. The embryo, object of researches : a look at patents].
    Mendoza-Caminade A
    J Int Bioethique Ethique Sci; 2018 Mar; 28(4):77-86. PubMed ID: 29561089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Revocation of European patent for neural progenitors highlights patent challenges for inventions relating to human embryonic stem cells.
    Rigby B
    Expert Opin Ther Pat; 2013 Nov; 23(11):1395-8. PubMed ID: 24079708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. [Human genes patents: yes or no? Reflections on the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States].
    Lacadena JR
    Rev Derecho Genoma Hum; 2013; (38):167-81. PubMed ID: 24340831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. [Genetic comment on patenting of biotechnology inventions in the adaptation of the Spanish Patenting Law to the European framework].
    Lacadena JR
    Rev Derecho Genoma Hum; 2002; (16):199-221. PubMed ID: 12379987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.