The IPKat has previously presented the court’s reasoning with regards to plausibility of second medical indication claims. Time to turn to the issue of what constitutes infringement.

The protection conferred by means of Swiss-type claims as well as the nature of the claims is of growing importance. This is the case despite the fact that Swiss-type claims have been replaced by purpose-limited product claims under 54(5) of the EPC2000 and the Abbott ruling

The focus of the infringement ruling is Claim 3, stating --

“use of pregabalin for the preparation of a pharmaceutical composition for treating neuropathic pain”.

The claim in question is a purpose-limited process claim. It is a process claim since it concerns the preparation of the substance pregabalin, and it is a purpose-limited claim since it only covers the process if undertaken in order to treat neuropathic painAlthough the Court unanimously holds that if Claims 1 and 3 had been valid, they would not have been infringed by Actavis, the justification of the ruling differs substantially between the Lords .