Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 117

1.

Patently unpatentable: implications of the Myriad court decision on genetic diagnostics.

Cho M.

Trends Biotechnol. 2010 Nov;28(11):548-51. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.08.005.

2.

A little light on the Mayo: justifying reversal of the Federal Circuit's Association for Molecular Pathology decision.

Georgek KJ.

Seton Hall Law Rev. 2014;44(1):171-206. No abstract available.

PMID:
24654292
3.

DNA patent decision leaves questions for diagnostics.

Harrison C.

Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011 Aug 31;10(9):650-1. doi: 10.1038/nrd3548. No abstract available.

PMID:
21878971
4.

Myriad decision reassures biotechs but diagnostics still murky.

Allison M.

Nat Biotechnol. 2011 Sep 8;29(9):771-2. doi: 10.1038/nbt0911-771. No abstract available.

PMID:
21904302
5.

Gene patents, patenting life and the impact of court rulings on US stem cell patents and research.

Matthews KR, Cuchiara ML.

Regen Med. 2014 Mar;9(2):191-200. doi: 10.2217/rme.13.93. Review.

PMID:
24750060
6.

Battle brewing over the BRCA1/2 gene patents.

Agovic A.

Rev Derecho Genoma Hum. 2010 Jul-Dec;(33):171-94.

PMID:
21510137
7.

The Impact of Myriad on the Future Development and Commercialization of DNA-Based Therapies and Diagnostics.

Wales M, Cartier E.

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2015 Sep 3;5(12). pii: a020925. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a020925. Review.

PMID:
26337114
9.

Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology.

Offit K, Bradbury A, Storm C, Merz JF, Noonan KE, Spence R.

J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul 20;31(21):2743-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.7388. Epub 2013 Jun 13.

PMID:
23766521
10.

Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?

Chandrasekharan S, McGuire AL, Van den Veyver IB.

Prenat Diagn. 2014 Oct;34(10):921-6. doi: 10.1002/pd.4445. Epub 2014 Jul 31. Review.

11.

Intellectual property and regulation of molecular pathology tests.

Klein RD.

Cancer J. 2014 Jan-Feb;20(1):85-90. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000012. Review.

PMID:
24445770
12.
13.

An overview of a recent court challenge to the protection of biomarkers as intellectual property.

Hall SC, Tromp JM, Jortani SA.

Clin Chim Acta. 2011 May 12;412(11-12):802-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2011.01.024. Epub 2011 Feb 20. Review.

PMID:
21315704
14.

Are natural products and medical diagnostic tests still eligible for patents in the USA?

Cockbain J, Sterckx S.

Pharm Pat Anal. 2012 Sep;1(4):365-70. doi: 10.4155/ppa.12.48.

PMID:
24236874
15.

Patentability of genetically engineered microorganisms.

Cooper A.

JAMA. 1983 Mar 25;249(12):1553-4.

PMID:
6338261
16.

The end of DNA patents in the United States?

Webber P.

Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2013 Dec;23(12):1525-7. doi: 10.1517/13543776.2013.849245. Epub 2013 Oct 19.

PMID:
24138004
17.

MYRIAD VOICES AGAINST GENE PATENTS IN THE HIGH COURT.

McCallum L, Faunce T.

J Law Med. 2015 Dec;23(2):322-9.

PMID:
26939499
19.
20.

Strategies for stem cell patent applications in the light of recent court cases.

Eyre DE, Schlich GW.

Pharm Pat Anal. 2015;4(6):431-41. doi: 10.4155/ppa.15.29.

PMID:
26580992

Supplemental Content

Support Center