UK Supreme Court grants permission for Emotional Perception Appeal

The UK Supreme Court has granted permission for Emotional Perception AI to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of 19 July 2024, in the latest chapter in this potentially pivotal case addressing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, specifically those involving artificial neural networks (ANNs).

UK Supreme Court grants permission for Emotional Perception Appeal

A Journey through the Courts

At the heart of this case is a patent application to an Artificial Neural Network (ANN)-powered music recommendation system. Emotional Perception AI initially succeeded at the High Court, which found the invention fell outside the exclusion for computer programs ‘as such’. This initial decision caused quite the stir, as it was in stark contrast to how AI-related inventions were previously dealt with in the UK. The UKIPO even issued Statutory Guidance a week later which indicated that ANNs should be dealt with differently (and arguably more favourably) when assessing patentability issues.

The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed. It concluded that the invention was caught by the exclusion and reaffirmed that ANNs, like other computer-implemented inventions, must demonstrate a sufficient ‘technical’ contribution to escape it. The decision of the Court of Appeal effectively reset the issue to business as usual - whereby ANNs are considered no differently or more favourably than any other computer-implemented invention.

What’s Next?

With permission to appeal granted, this case will now come before the UK’s highest court. The involvement of the Supreme Court illustrates the potential significance of this case, and provides an opportunity to revisit the complex and often-debated boundaries of patentable subject matter in the UK. More specifically, we may get a final answer on some of the key points of contention surrounding this case, such as:

  • Whether the application of ANNs is inherently technical;
  • What may be deemed a 'technical contribution' in the realm of AI; and
  • How to interpret the exclusions to patentability in light of new and evolving technology areas such as AI.

Broader Implications

If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s ruling, it will confirm the long-standing application of the law by the UKIPO - ANNs, like other software innovations, must provide a technical contribution that falls outside a computer program ‘as such’. However, a decision in favor of Emotional Perception AI could mark a shift, potentially making the UK a more favorable jurisdiction for AI-related inventions than the EPO.

For these reasons, the progress of this case at the Supreme Court will be closely watched by patent professionals and innovators alike. Whether the Court will reinforce the current legal framework or open the door to further technologies remains to be seen.

AI for patents.

Be 50%+ more productive. Join thousands of legal professionals around the World using Solve’s Patent Copilot™ for drafting, prosecution, invention harvesting, and more.

Related articles

LAC 2026: What Generic and Biosimilar IP Teams Think About AI

Generic and biosimilar IP teams are already using AI for prosecution history and FTO work. The live debate is not about adoption, but internal framing of quality and coverage extension without reducing headcount. The teams furthest along chose the former.

Key takeaways

  • Generic and biosimilar IP teams use AI primarily for prosecution history summaries, invalidity analysis and FTO claim charting.
  • Viewing AI as a quality and coverage extension drives durable internal adoption.
  • General-purpose AI cannot reliably interpret claim scope from prosecution history; patent-specific tools are required.

Aliza Panjwani Joins Solve

We’re happy to welcome Aliza Panjwani as a Legal & Product Engineer.

Dan Rudoy to join Solve’s Customer Advisory Board

We are excited to welcome Dan Rudoy, Shareholder at Wolf Greenfield, to Solve Intelligence’s Customer Advisory Board.

EPO G 1/26: How the Coated Steel Strips Case Tests Article 123(2)

At Solve Intelligence, we build AI tools purpose-built for patent prosecution and opposition workflows. European teams, including cross-Atlantic firms like HG, use Solve Intelligence to stay ahead of EPO doctrine shifts as they happen. In this article, we cover the three referred questions in G 1/26, the practical implications for prosecution and opposition teams, and what to do before the decision lands.

Key takeaways

  • G 1/26 asks whether G 1/24's rule to consult the description extends from patentability assessment to Article 123(2) added matter.
  • The underlying case (T 873/24) turns on whether "ratio of titanium to nitrogen in excess of 3.42" means a weight ratio or a molar ratio.
  • The referral poses three sets of questions: admissibility under Article 112(1), the reach of the description in claim interpretation, and the consequences for Article 123(2).
  • If the Enlarged Board extends G 1/24 to Article 123(2), description-based narrowing applies to added-matter assessment across all European proceedings.