FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 355:2036-2041 November 9, 2006 Number 19 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

Patents have helped promote innovation for centuries, but the modern application of patents to the field of medicine raises legal and ethical questions. Patents covering pharmaceutical products and medical research tools are ubiquitous, and many discoveries described by such patents have contributed to the advancement of medical science. At the same time, when patent protection has been too broad, extended beyond the term initially granted, or granted for discoveries that are far from groundbreaking, it has hindered scientific progress and increased costs in the medical marketplace. A wide-ranging debate has emerged over how to balance these competing interests.^1,2,3

This spring, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Medical Processes as Intellectual Property

The LabCorp Case

Implications of Process Patents for Clinical Medicine

Source Information

From the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital (A.S.K.), and the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health (M.M.M.) — both in Boston.

Related Letters:

Medical-Process Patents
Klein R. D.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2007; 356:753-754, Feb 15, 2007. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Klein, R. D., Mahoney, M. J. (2008). LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories: The Supreme Court Listens, but Declines to Speak.. J Law Med Ethics 36: 141-149  
• Klein, R. D. (2007). Medical-Process Patents. NEJM 356: 753-754 [Full Text]