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

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.

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.

Related articles

How Much of Your Patent Practice Should You Codify?

Both in-house teams and outside counsel can let a purpose-built platform carry the shared foundation for their patent work. They can then focus their limited time on the standards and judgment that set their work apart. AI has made this division of labor more valuable by raising the payoff for turning a practice into templates, instructions, and review criteria that run at scale. Let’s call that codification. The platform can encode a great deal of best practice out of the box, and a team can add its own custom templates and instructions on top. The real question is how much to add and how much to leave to the platform. There is no fixed formula because the right balance changes as the team’s practice, the law, and the technology evolve.

How Successful Patent Practitioners Are Putting AI to Work

The most effective patent practitioners are already using AI patent drafting to draft faster, catch claim inconsistencies earlier, and free up hours for the strategic work that actually wins allowances.

Key takeaways

  • AI patent drafting tools can reduce application drafting time by up to 80 percent, with Solve Intelligence customers consistently reporting 50 percent or greater efficiency gains across drafting and prosecution 
  • Roughly 9 out of 10 utility patent applications receive at least one office action rejection, so prosecution efficiency matters as much as drafting speed 
  • Solo attorneys use AI to match larger law firms on turnaround speed and client capacity
  • The strongest reported results come from iterative AI–attorney collaboration, with practitioners directing the process and owning the final work product

Adopting AI in Patent Work: A Practical Playbook for IP Teams

Solve Intelligence works with over 700+ patent teams as they bring AI into daily practice, and the same pattern shows up again and again: recognising that AI helps is easy, but building consistent, team-wide use is not. Adoption tends to stall for a handful of reasons, from informal early experiments to unclear decision making, and a promising trial can fade out without anyone establishing whether the tool or the rollout was at fault. This playbook lays out the process that gets a team from first experiment to settled habit, with the attorney's judgment in control at every step.

How AI Brings Patent Intelligence Into Every Decision

AI makes it practical to rerun patent intelligence as products and patent rights develop. For example, at concept stage, broad freedom-to-operate screening identifies the rights that merit attention. As the design matures, selected patents are escalated for feature-by-feature claim charts, while scheduled monitoring refreshes the analysis when claims are amended or an application proceeds to grant.

This contrasts with the traditional approach, in which landscapes, FTO reviews, and portfolio analyses were commissioned as separate projects at fixed stages. Each took substantial time to complete and was rarely repeated.