Festo and the US Supreme Court: Be careful what you wish for

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 20, Issue 8, 2002, Pages 845-846

  Gogoris, Adda C ^a   Lee, Sandra S ^a  

^a Darby and Darby   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PATENT;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; PATENTS; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS;

EID: 0036690292     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: 15461696     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0802-745     Document Type: Note

References (8)

1. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu, 122 S. Ct. 1831 (2002).
2. F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
3. US 330 (1852).
4. Winans, 56 US at 347 (Campbell, J., dissenting).
5. Graver Tank v. Linde, 339 US 608 (1950).
6. Pennwalt v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
7. Hilton-Davis v.Warner-Jenkinson, 520 US 17 (1997).
8. Anonymous. Justices bolster patent holders’ rights. New York Times, May 29 (2002), p. C4.