Correspondence | Published:

Brain modulation and patent law

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 1819 (2019) | Download Citation

Subjects

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , & Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 119–121 (2017).

  2. 2.

    et al. US patent 9,327,069 (2006).

  3. 3.

    et al. US patent 9,050,463 (2015).

  4. 4.

    & US patent 9,283,378 (2012).

  5. 5.

    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 569 U.S. 576 (2013).

  6. 6.

    35 U.S. Code §287(c).

  7. 7.

    United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

  8. 8.

    Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. 489 U.S. 141 (1989).

  9. 9.

    Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. 416 U.S. 470 (1974).

  10. 10.

    Vanderbilt Law Rev. 56, 115–236 (2003).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, DC, USA.

    • Andreas Kuersten
  2. Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

    • Anna Wexler

Authors

  1. Search for Andreas Kuersten in:

  2. Search for Anna Wexler in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Kuersten.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4334

Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing