Biomarkers unbound - The supreme court's ruling on diagnostic-test patents

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 366, Issue 25, 2012, Pages 2338-2340

  Kesselheim, Aaron S ^a   Karlawish, Jason ^b  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AZATHIOPRINE; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; HOMOCYSTEINE;

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COURT; CYANOCOBALAMIN DEFICIENCY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST APPROVAL; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG STRUCTURE; ENTERITIS; FOLIC ACID DEFICIENCY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; SHORT SURVEY;

EID: 84862573504     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1204164     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 566 U.S. (20 Mar 2012).
2. Brief for Petitioners, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (10-1150), September 2011 (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other-Brief-Updates/10-1150-petitioner. authcheckdam.pdf).
3. Kesselheim AS, Mello MM. Medical process patents - monopolizing the delivery of health care. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2036-41. (Pubitemid 44708024)
4. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).
5. Williams HL. Intellectual property rights and innovation: evidence from the human genome. July 2010 (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. w16213) (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1648013).