相似文献
1
Consternation and confusion following EU patent judgment.
Cell Stem Cell. 2011 Dec 2;9(6):498-9. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2011.11.002.
2
Europe. Dismay, confusion greet human stem cell patent ban.
Science. 2011 Oct 28;334(6055):441-2. doi: 10.1126/science.334.6055.441.
3
No patent-no therapy: a matter of moral and legal consistency within the European Union regarding the use of human embryonic stem cells.
Stem Cells Dev. 2014 Dec;23 Suppl 1:56-9. doi: 10.1089/scd.2014.0356.
4
Europe rules against stem-cell patents.
Nature. 2011 Mar 17;471(7338):280. doi: 10.1038/471280a.
5
Patent eligibility of stem cells in Europe: where do we stand after 8 years of case law?
Regen Med. 2017 Jan;12(1):37-51. doi: 10.2217/rme-2016-0099. Epub 2016 Dec 15.
6
Reaction to the Brüstle decision.
Pharm Pat Anal. 2012 Jul;1(3):233-5. doi: 10.4155/ppa.12.37.
7
The author file: Oliver Brüstle.
Nat Methods. 2012 Jun;9(6):519. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2035.
8
Sound and fury after stem cell ruling.
Lancet. 2011 Nov 5;378(9803):1617. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61684-x.
9
Brüstle decision is unhelpful, but not catastrophic.
Cell Stem Cell. 2011 Dec 2;9(6):500-1. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2011.11.007.
10
Brüstle v. Greenpeace: Implications for Commercialisation of Translational Stem Cell Research.
Eur J Health Law. 2015 Apr;22(2):141-64. doi: 10.1163/15718093-12341341.
引用本文的文献
1
The impact of European embryonic stem cell patent decisions on research strategies.
Nat Biotechnol. 2015 Jan;33(1):41-3. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3105.
2
CASMI TSCC launch event, Paris, France, July 2013: an assessment of the key barriers to the commercialization and clinical adoption of pluripotent stem cell therapies.
Rejuvenation Res. 2014 Feb;17(1):84-8. doi: 10.1089/rej.2014.1545.
3
Defining "research" in the US and EU: contrast of Sherley v. Sebelius and Brüstle v. Greenpeace rulings.
Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2013 Dec;9(6):743-51. doi: 10.1007/s12015-013-9462-3.
Zotero 插件