his article examines the institutional changes created by the unitarypatent package (UPP), including the unified patent court (UPCt), in the Europeanpatent system. It focuses specifically on the implications of these changes for themorality provisions for biotech inventions: contained in Art. 53(a) EPC and Art. 6Biotechnology Directive 98/44EC. These provisions were chosen as a site ofinvestigation because of the overlap of substantive EU and EPC laws involved.Furthermore, despite the identical wording of these provisions in the EPC andDirective, the open-textured nature of the morality provisions requires interpretationby the adjudicative bodies in each institutional framework. Hence, institutionalinfluences on adjudicative bodies are heightened. Accordingly, these provisionsprovide an ideal site to examine the significance of the addition of another adju-dicative body, the UPCt to the European patent system. The article examines theimplications of having adjudicative bodies operating in differing institutionalframeworks in contexts where States have overlapping obligations to internationaltreaties. It argues that the UPCt is not institutionally configured to apply theseprovisions in the same manner as the generalist CJEU and demonstrates that theUPCt’s openness to refer questions to the CJEU is crucial to ensuring the UPP doesnot become blinkered to broader issues. Moreover, it argues that the unitary natureof the European Patent with unitary effect (EPUE) is problematic because it fails toaccommodate national divergence on the morality provisions and it is unclearwhether morality is to be judged at a national, EPC or EU level. A mechanism formaintaining national divergence in this context is propose

EB00000003771K			Available
EB00000003770K			Available

• N IMMODEST PROPOSAL: HOBBES RATHER THAN LOCKEPROVIDES A FORERUNNER FOR MODERN RIGHTS THEORY