In a series of decisions concerning the complex issues arising in relation to supplementary protection certificates, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently behaved like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, providing a well reasoned and impressively lucid decision in Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents,1 followed by three confusing decisions in Actavis Group PTC EHF e Actavis UK Ltd v Sanofi2 (Actavis), Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederlandand3 (Georgetown II), and Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc.4 This article examines the Actavis decision and its practical consequences.

You do not currently have access to this article.