相似文献
1
Implications of recent US Supreme Court IP ruling for nanomedicine patents.
Nanomedicine (Lond). 2008 Apr;3(2):141-3. doi: 10.2217/17435889.3.2.141.
2
Patents and nanomedicine.
Nanomedicine (Lond). 2007 Jun;2(3):351-74. doi: 10.2217/17435889.2.3.351.
3
Changing emphasis in test for patent infringement.
Med Device Technol. 2005 Mar;16(2):28.
4
Recent Supreme Court decisions and licensing power.
Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Feb;26(2):183-5. doi: 10.1038/nbt0208-183.
5
Protecting new ideas and inventions in nanomedicine with patents.
Nanomedicine. 2005 Jun;1(2):150-8. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2005.03.009.
6
Are human genes patentable? The Supreme Court says yes and no.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Aug;32(8):1343-5. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0707.
7
Brussels takes EU states to court over biopatent law.
Nat Biotechnol. 2003 Sep;21(9):960. doi: 10.1038/nbt0903-960.
8
Biotechnology patents under fire.
Nat Biotechnol. 2015 Sep;33(9):925-6. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3334.
9
Who owns federally funded research? The Supreme court and the Bayh-Dole act.
N Engl J Med. 2011 Sep 29;365(13):1167-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1109168. Epub 2011 Aug 31.
10
Inter partes reexamination: a potentially useful approach to challenging invalid biotechnology patents.
Nat Biotechnol. 2003 Jul;21(7):823-5. doi: 10.1038/nbt0703-823.
Zotero 插件