139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9702759)
1. Patent office resurrects EST debate.
Chahine K
Nat Biotechnol; 1998 Aug; 16(8):711. PubMed ID: 9702759
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Insulin patent dispute revisits old biotechnology battleground.
Fox JL
Nat Biotechnol; 1997 Apr; 15(4):307. PubMed ID: 9094114
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Analyzing the USPTO's revised utility guidelines. United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Kowalski TJ
Nat Biotechnol; 2000 Mar; 18(3):349-50. PubMed ID: 10700156
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Biotech patents: the world is your oyster--or mouse--or (you name it).
Alix JE
Technol Health Care; 1996 Sep; 4(3):255-8. PubMed ID: 8931235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Going beyond the native: protecting DNA and protein patents.
Chahine KG
Nat Biotechnol; 1997 Feb; 15(2):183-6. PubMed ID: 9035147
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Patenting DNA: just when you thought it was safe.
Chahine KG
Nat Biotechnol; 1997 Jun; 15(6):586-8. PubMed ID: 9181584
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Are ESTs patentable?
Auth DR
Nat Biotechnol; 1997 Sep; 15(9):911-2. PubMed ID: 9306410
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Roche's Taq patent 'obtained by deceit', rules US court.
Dalton R
Nature; 1999 Dec; 402(6763):709. PubMed ID: 10617182
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Errors in patent application sequence listings.
Jones R
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Oct; 21(10):1239-40. PubMed ID: 14520406
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Patent first, ask questions later: morality and biotechnology in patent law.
Bagley MA
William Mary Law Rev; 2003 Dec; 45(2):469-547. PubMed ID: 15570677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Opinions evolve on Kauffman patent.
Dove A
Nat Biotechnol; 2000 Apr; 18(4):373. PubMed ID: 10748506
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Patent office decisions strengthened by Supreme Court.
Baggot BX
Nat Biotechnol; 1999 Nov; 17(11):1131-2. PubMed ID: 10545924
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. US court case to define EST patentability.
Lawrence S
Nat Biotechnol; 2005 May; 23(5):513. PubMed ID: 15877055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Ethical questions to ponder in the European stem cell patent debate.
Curley D; Sharples A
J Biolaw Bus; 2006; 9(3):12-6. PubMed ID: 17152135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Patent office replies to fears over ESTs.
Wadman M
Nature; 1997 Apr; 386(6627):747. PubMed ID: 9126719
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. DNA-based patents: an empirical analysis.
Mills AE; Tereskerz P
Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Sep; 26(9):993-5. PubMed ID: 18779808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. US Patent Office strategic plan may penalize biotechs.
Robertson D
Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Apr; 21(4):345-6. PubMed ID: 12665807
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The scope of utility in the twenty-first century: new guidance for gene-related patents.
Summers TM
Georgetown Law J; 2003 Jan; 91(2):475-509. PubMed ID: 15046071
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Genetics. Trends in human gene patent litigation.
Holman CM
Science; 2008 Oct; 322(5899):198-9. PubMed ID: 18845733
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
