Since the Lyrica patent claims are Swiss-type claims, Judge Arnold assessed the matter under section 60(1)(c) Patents Act 1977, as direct infringement, because indirect infringement as outlined in the Grimme v Scott decision would only apply if the defendant were supplying a manufacturer. Actavis was not supplying a manufacturer, but rather was itself the manufacturer, and could therefore only directly infringe Warner-Lambert’s patent. Section 60(1)(c) Patents Act 1977 defines infringement as "any product obtained directly by means of [the claimed] process”.Judge Arnold concluded that the word “for” in the Swiss-type claim (use of substance x for producing a medicament for the treatment of Y) requires subjective intention on part of the manufacturer.