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 *

199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27267566)

  • 1. Sequenom, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Personalized Medicine.
    Kodroff CA
    Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev; 2016 Jun; 27(2):49-52. PubMed ID: 27267566
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. US personalized-medicine industry takes hit from Supreme Court.
    Ledford H
    Nature; 2016 Aug; 536(7617):382. PubMed ID: 27558042
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Supreme Court rules against gene patents.
    Kuehn BM
    JAMA; 2013 Jul; 310(4):357-9. PubMed ID: 23917268
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Gene patenting--the Supreme Court finally speaks.
    Kesselheim AS; Cook-Deegan RM; Winickoff DE; Mello MM
    N Engl J Med; 2013 Aug; 369(9):869-75. PubMed ID: 23841703
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [The Supreme Court free genes - economic and legal justifications - impacts on innovation and the healthcare offer].
    Cassier M; Stoppa-Lyonnet D
    Med Sci (Paris); 2015 Feb; 31(2):209-13. PubMed ID: 25744269
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. U.S. Supreme Court decision paves way for better genetic testing: ruling bars exclusive licensing, patents on naturally occurring genes.
    Levenson D
    Am J Med Genet A; 2013 Sep; 161A(9):ix-x. PubMed ID: 23946205
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Supreme Court ruling broadens BRCA testing options.
    Azvolinsky A
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2013 Nov; 105(22):1671-2. PubMed ID: 24198329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sequenom v. Ariosa - The Death of a Genetic Testing Patent.
    Cook-Deegan R; Chandrasekharan S
    N Engl J Med; 2016 Dec; 375(25):2418-2419. PubMed ID: 28002697
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The wake of FTC v. Actavis: practical implications on the pharmaceutical industry.
    Ritter M; Tempesta J; Ragusa P
    Pharm Pat Anal; 2014 Jul; 3(4):345-7. PubMed ID: 25291307
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Take off your genes and let the doctor have a look: why the Mayo and Myriad decisions have invalidated method claims for genetic diagnostic testing.
    Bergin C
    Am Univ Law Rev; 2013; 63(1):173-217. PubMed ID: 25335200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On access and accountability--two Supreme Court rulings on generic drugs.
    Boumil MM; Curfman GD
    N Engl J Med; 2013 Aug; 369(8):696-7. PubMed ID: 23923990
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Supreme Court to decide whether payments by patent holders to delay production of generics are anticompetitive.
    Roehr B
    BMJ; 2012 Dec; 345():e8464. PubMed ID: 23236054
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Generics still unable to resolve ANDA patent issues by declaratory judgment, but is a supreme court resolution on the way?
    Eccleston LE
    Health Care Law Mon; 2006 Dec; ():3-5. PubMed ID: 17236678
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Pharmaceutical patent life-cycle management after KSR v. Teleflex.
    Furrow ME
    Food Drug Law J; 2008; 63(1):275-320. PubMed ID: 18561462
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Diagnostic method patents and harms to follow-on innovation.
    Harv Law Rev; 2013 Mar; 126(5):1370-91. PubMed ID: 25330558
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Muddying the waters: how the Supreme Court's decision in Merck v. Integra fails to resolve problems of judicial interpretation of 35 U.S.C. Section 271(E)(1), the "safe harbor" provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act.
    Sertic M
    Health Matrix Clevel; 2007; 17(2):377-439. PubMed ID: 18326397
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Not quite a myriad of gene patents.
    Graff GD; Phillips D; Lei Z; Oh S; Nottenburg C; Pardey PG
    Nat Biotechnol; 2013 May; 31(5):404-10. PubMed ID: 23657391
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Supreme Court will rule on whether patents for BRAC1 and BRAC2 genes are valid.
    Dyer C
    BMJ; 2012 Dec; 345():e8266. PubMed ID: 23223689
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reanalyzing reverse payment settlements: a solution to the patentee's dilemma.
    Wang Z
    Cornell Law Rev; 2014 Jul; 99(5):1227-58. PubMed ID: 25112001
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.