AT A GLANCE…..
This article looks at the business impact of the UK Supreme Court decision in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. The decision helps clarify how artificial intelligence and computer‑implemented inventions are assessed under UK patent law. In particular, the decision will see UK aligning itself more with the European Patent Office (EPO) and should help reduce uncertainty for businesses developing AI and software innovations.
What Happened?
On 11 February 2026, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of Emotional Perception AI Limited. The company had applied to patent a system using artificial neural networks (ANNs) to recommend media files based on emotional similarity. The Court clarified how the statutory exclusion of computer programs ‘as such’ under section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 should be interpreted.
Rather than rigidly applying the framework set out in the historic Aerotel decision, the Court adopted an approach more closely aligned with the EPO by focusing on whether the claimed invention involves technical means and assessing inventive step only by reference to features contributing to technical character.
The Court confirmed that artificial neural networks are computer programs. However, a claim is excluded only if it relates to a computer program ‘as such’. Where a claimed invention involves technical means (for example, hardware implementation or interaction with physical systems), it will generally pass the initial eligibility threshold.
Whilst this appears to be a low threshold, passing it does not guarantee patentability. The invention must still be novel, involve an inventive step, and contain features that contribute to technical character.
Important Clarifications
The decision does not make business methods, abstract algorithms, or purely mathematical methods patentable merely because they are implemented on conventional hardware. The statutory exclusions remain part of UK law.
The Court endorsed an approach whereby non‑technical features are filtered out when assessing the inventive step. Only features contributing to technical character are considered when determining whether the invention is non‑obvious.
What This Means for Businesses
For businesses, the decision should be welcome. With AI becoming an integrated part of the innovative process, the decision not only provides clarity but should also be seen as a positive message to business about the ability to protect their inventions. In addition, the decision provides:
- Greater clarity in how AI and software inventions are assessed.
- Reduced procedural uncertainty at the eligibility stage.
- Improved alignment between UK and European patent strategies.
- Potentially fewer preliminary objections from the UKIPO on subject matter grounds.
- Enhanced ability to develop coherent multi‑jurisdictional patent portfolios.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant clarification of UK patent law rather than a wholesale expansion of what is patentable. It simplifies the analytical structure applied to computer‑implemented inventions and brings UK practice closer to that of the European Patent Office, reducing uncertainty for technology‑driven businesses.
Organisations operating in the AI and software sectors should consider reviewing their intellectual property strategies to ensure that potentially valuable innovations are appropriately protected.
How We Can Help
Kidwells dedicated Technology and Commercial team can help businesses understand and plan their IP protection strategies.
For further information, get in touch.