UK Supreme Court Decides ‘Emotional Perception’ Patent Case

The UK Supreme Court Issues Landmark Patent Decision, Heralding Big Change in Patent Law

New patentability test for AI inventions

In a landmark patent decision, the UK Supreme Court on the 11^th February 2026 issued its judgment in the case of Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, almost certainly reshaping how AI (and other related) inventions will be treated under UK patent law in future. This case centres on whether an artificial neural network (ANN) developed by Emotional Perception, primarily used to provide recommendations using organised data such as music based on patterns tied to human emotional perception, can qualify for patent protection in the UK.

Background of the case

Emotional Perception applied to patent its ANN-based system, which recommended data files based on semantic/emotional similarity rather than conventional category-based sorting. The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) originally rejected the application, arguing it was a ‘computer program … as such‘ and therefore excluded from patentability under Section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977, this being a longstanding exclusion for pure software inventions. The lower courts gave conflicting rulings. The UK High Court initially ruled in favour of Emotional Perception, while the UK Court of Appeal reversed that decision, holding that the ANN was effectively a computer program and not patentable.

What the Supreme Court ruled

The Supreme Court has held that:

1. The traditional UK test for software inventions no longer applies:

The court found that the existing UK approach to software and related inventions, (referred to as the Aerotel test) used by the lower courts and UKIPO examiners deviates from the interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC), which UK patent law is supposed to be based upon.

2. The UK must follow the EPO interpretation of the EPC:

The judges directed that when examining computer-implemented inventions such as AI systems, UK law should align more closely with the European Patent Office’s (EPO) approach, which focuses on whether there is a technical contribution or technical effect. This EPO approach is defined by the judgement in G1/19.

3. Artificial neural networks are not automatically excluded from patentability:

Crucially, the Supreme Court held that an ANN, even if it is a computer program in an abstract sense, may still qualify as a patentable “invention” if it has sufficient technical character. This means such AI systems can clear the first hurdle of being considered a patentable invention and likely will lead to more patents being granted for so-called computer-implemented inventions.

What happens next?

The Supreme Court did not finally decide whether Emotional Perception AI’s invention is patentable. Instead, it sent the application back to the UK Intellectual Property Office for reconsideration under the new legal framework clarified by the court. The Court directed the UKIPO to first identify which features of the invention contribute to its “technical character,” and only then assess novelty and inventive step, the traditional substantive parts of patent law.

Why this matters

This judgment is a significant change in UK patent law. For years, AI developers and patent attorneys have struggled with uncertainty over whether neural networks and other software-heavy systems qualify for patent protection. The Supreme Court ruling in this case rejects the idea that these systems are categorically excluded and instead requiring a more nuanced and technical assessment. It is highly likely that the UKIPO will grant patents under the new regime that would not have granted under the old regime.

Posted: 16th February 2026