Works matching DE "BILSKI v. Kappos"
1
- Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 2011, v. 16, n. 2, p. 257
- Article
2
- Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 2009, v. 14, n. 2, p. 179
- Article
3
- Boston University Law Review, 2017, v. 97, n. 2, p. 551
- Article
4
- University of Illinois Law Review, 2016, v. 2016, n. 3, p. 1157
- MASLAR, AMANDA B.;
- MEHTA, PRACHI V.
- Article
5
- Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review, 2014, v. 21, n. 1, p. 141
- Article
6
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 2015, v. 17, n. 2, p. 349
- Holbrook, Timothy R.;
- Janis, Mark D.
- Article
7
- Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 2012, v. 38, n. 1, p. 117
- Article
8
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2011, v. 26, n. 1, p. 15
- Article
9
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2010, v. 25, n. 4, p. 1673
- Crouch, Dennis;
- Merges, Robert P.
- Article
10
- Michigan Technology Law Review, 2020, v. 27, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
12
- FIU Law Review, 2020, v. 14, n. 2, p. 233, doi. 10.25148/lawrev.14.2.7
- Article
13
- Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, 2010, v. 13, p. 285
- Article
14
- Capital University Law Review, 2012, v. 40, n. 3, p. 741
- Article
15
- Journal of Generic Medicines, 2010, v. 7, n. 2, p. 205, doi. 10.1057/jgm.2010.4
- Article
16
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2011, v. 2011, n. 4, p. 1223
- Article
17
- William & Mary Business Law Review, 2012, v. 3, n. 2, p. 575
- Article
18
- Touro Law Review, 2011, v. 27, n. 2, p. 379
- Article
20
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2011, v. 34, n. 1, p. 377
- Article
21
- Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 2013, v. 21, n. 1, p. 135
- Swetnam-Burland, David;
- Stitham, Stacy O.
- Article
22
- Lewis & Clark Law Review, 2011, v. 15, n. 1, p. 133
- Article
23
- Stanford Law Review, 2011, v. 63, n. 6, p. 1377
- Article
24
- Stanford Law Review, 2011, v. 63, n. 6, p. 1349
- Dreyfuss, Rochelle C.;
- Evans, James P.
- Article
25
- Stanford Law Review, 2011, v. 63, n. 6, p. 1315
- Lemley, Mark A.;
- Risch, Michael;
- Sichelman, Ted;
- Wagner, R. Polk
- Article
26
- Stanford Law Review, 2011, v. 63, n. 6, p. 1289
- Article
27
- Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, 2012, v. 22, n. 2, p. 589
- Peachman, Scott Frederick
- Article
28
- Missouri Law Review, 2012, v. 77, n. 2, p. 591
- Article
29
- Utah Law Review, 2011, v. 2011, n. 3, p. 797
- Article
30
- Arizona State Law Journal, 2018, v. 50, n. 1, p. 71
- Article
31
- Business Lawyer, 2010, v. 66, n. 1, p. 197
- Article
32
- Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 2010, v. 16, n. 4, p. 360, doi. 10.1057/jcb.2010.19
- Kowalski, Thomas J.;
- Lunasin, Heidi E.;
- Lu, Deborah L.;
- McGuire, Brian M.;
- DeRosa, Frank J.
- Article
33
- Nature Biotechnology, 2010, v. 28, n. 8, p. 801, doi. 10.1038/nbt0810-801
- Article
34
- Nature Biotechnology, 2010, v. 28, n. 8, p. 767, doi. 10.1038/nbt0810-767b
- Chahine, Kenneth;
- Mixco, Javier
- Article
35
- Duke Law & Technology Review, 2015, v. 14, n. 1, p. 25
- Article
36
- Banking Law Journal, 2013, v. 130, n. 3, p. 253
- SCHREINER, STEPHEN T.;
- LERMAN, NOAH M.
- Article
37
- Campbell Law Review, 2012, v. 34, n. 3, p. 663
- Article
38
- American University Law Review, 2015, v. 64, n. 4, p. 1089
- Article
39
- North Dakota Law Review, 2010, v. 86, n. 3, p. 641
- Article