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

Patent Landscape Analysis: How R&D Teams Identify Whitespace

R&D teams use patent landscape analysis to locate uncharted areas of a technology field, assess freedom-to-operate (FTO), and focus development resources on the areas of highest commercial value and broadest potential claim coverage.

Key takeaways

  • A patent landscape search locates whitespace; a novelty search locates prior art blockers. 
  • Patent landscape outputs require contextual analysis; volume alone does not determine opportunity or density.
  • Solve’s Charts tool scans millions of patents from a single file upload and leverages agentic searching, replacing manual iterative keyword & semantic search.

What IPBC Global 2026 in San Diego Revealed about the Future of IP

At IPBC Global 2026, Solve Intelligence was proud to be a sponsor of the conversations shaping the future of intellectual property. At the conference, we demonstrated how our platform amplifies end-to-end patent workflows, including licensing, litigation, and IP-backed finance.

Key takeaways

  • Generic LLMs cannot perform the structured legal reasoning and claim analysis that patent licensing and litigation require.
  • AI lowers the cost of analysing portfolios, from claim-to-product mappings to validity analyses, accelerating both sides of licensing negotiations.
  • IP-backed finance, insurance, and M&A due diligence are growing in sophistication and volume.
  • The profession faces a capacity gap that generic AI tools are not designed to close.

What Is a Freedom to Operate Analysis, and How Does AI Speed It Up?

A freedom to operate (FTO) analysis is a claim-by-claim assessment of whether a commercial activity would infringe any third-party patents in the markets where it will take place. AI speeds it up by handling the parts that scale badly by hand: surfacing relevant patents, mapping product features against claims element by element, pulling legal status by jurisdiction, and producing a cited, structured draft for the attorney to review and refine.

Key takeaways

• FTO analysis determines whether a product infringes third-party patents.

• A valid patent on your own invention doesn’t guarantee freedom to operate.

• AI compresses the slowest stages of FTO, including search, triage, and element-by-element claim mapping, while the attorney retains the legal judgment and owns the opinion.

• Generalist AI and purpose-built patent tools share a surface format; but FTO reliability depends on integration, not interface.

How to Build an Invalidity Claim Chart: A Practical Guide

An invalidity claim chart is a structured document that maps, for example, each limitation of a patent claim against prior art to show the patent should never have been granted. If you’re defending against infringement allegations, preparing an IPR petition, opposing a European patent, or advising a client on patent risk, knowing how to build one correctly is non-negotiable.

Key takeaways

• A well-built invalidity chart maps every claim limitation to prior art, element by element, with pinpoint citations to the exact column, line, page, or figure.

• When IPRs reach a final written decision, the PTAB now finds every challenged claim unpatentable around 70% of the time; and the chart is a key component of getting a petition instituted in the first place.

• Solve Intelligence’s Charts generates fully cited, limitation-by-limitation invalidity charts in minutes rather than days, flags weak limitation coverage candidly, and lets attorneys inspect the reasoning behind every mapping.