Skip to main content
Log in

Brain modulation and patent law

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

From Nature Biotechnology

View current issue Submit your manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Roskams-Edris, D., Anderson-Redick, S., Kiss, Z.H. & Illes, J. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 119–121 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Foster, A.M. et al. US patent 9,327,069 (2006).

  3. Wagner, T.A. et al. US patent 9,050,463 (2015).

  4. Krueger, R. & Weiss, D. US patent 9,283,378 (2012).

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

  6. 35 U.S. Code §287(c).

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

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

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

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Kuersten.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuersten, A., Wexler, A. Brain modulation and patent law. Nat Biotechnol 37, 18–19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4334

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

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

  • Springer Nature America, Inc.

This article is cited by

Navigation