Patenting for the research scientist: An update

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 22, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 638-642

  Crespi, R Stephen ^a  

^a Bognor Regis W Sussex P ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOSCIENTISTS; PATENT LAWS; PATENT PROTECTION;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; PERSONNEL; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

COURT; INDUSTRY; LAW; PATENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; EUROPE; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HUMANS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PATENTS; PUBLISHING; UNITED STATES;

EID: 8144231259     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.10.005     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. R.S. Crespi Patenting for the research scientist Trends Biotechnol. 16 1998 450 455
2. United States Supreme Court, Brenner versus Manson, US Patent Quarterly 148, 689-696
3. Title 35 United States Code 112
4. United States Patent and Trade Mark Office (2001) Utility and Written Description Guidelines, Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 4.3), pp. 1092-1111
5. European Patent Office (October 1973) European Patent Convention (Article 83), Munich
6. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1997) Regents of the University of California versus Eli Lilly & Co. US patent 4 652 525. United States Patent Quarterly 43, USPQ 2d 1398
7. ICOS Corporation European patent 0 630 405, Official Journal of the EPO 6/2002, 294-308 7
8. University of Rochester versus G.D. Searle & Co et al. US patent 6 048 850. (March 5, 2004) United States District Court for the Western District of New York 68 USPQ2d 1424, and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 69 USPQ2d 1886; http://laws.findlaw.com/fed/031304.html