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

How Solve Intelligence Handles Invention Disclosures and Unstructured Data

If you've been drafting patents for any length of time, you know the real bottleneck is often not the drafting itself. It's the messy inputs that precede it: partial forms, internal review decks, or email threads where the inventive aspects are buried. Getting from that to a coherent starting point for a draft consumes time most practices simply can't afford.

AI can perform much of that translation work: extracting what matters, flagging what's missing, and generating the necessary follow-up questions based on holes and shortcomings. But it must operate inside proper confidentiality controls, and its output requires attorney review before going near a draft. This guide covers how that works in practice in Solve Intelligence's platform .

Key takeaways

  • The disclosure bottleneck is upstream; AI structures messy inputs before the drafting phase begins.
  • AI extracts features, normalises terminology, surfaces gaps, and generates inventor questions, but attorney review is mandatory.
  • The danger is plausible but fabricated detail, not obvious errors. Watch for AI-generated parameters or 'helpful' specifics.
  • Disclosures contain trade secrets and unpublished IP. Use only tools with verified zero-training, zero-retention policies and enterprise-grade security.
  • A sensible pilot, without client approval, uses anonymised or historical disclosures to define 'good' output and track key metrics over limited timeframe.

How Nielsen Is Scaling Patent Operations with AI

Nielsen, a global leader in media audience measurement operating in over 50 countries, manages an industry-leading patent portfolio protecting innovations across a variety of fields, including data science, media measurement technology, and viewer analytics. Operating at the intersection of data science and an ever-changing media landscape requires constant innovation to keep pace. Supporting this innovation velocity requires IP operations that can scale without compromising quality.

Nielsen's in-house team adopted Solve Intelligence as their AI patent platform following a comprehensive evaluation process in Q4 2025. The partnership between Nielsen and Solve Intelligence reflects a shared commitment to precision and enabling practitioners to do their best work more efficiently.

Solve Intelligence Acquires Palito.ai to Unify AI Patent Litigation and Prosecution in One Platform

Solve Intelligence has acquired Palito.ai, a Munich-based startup specialising in AI-powered patent litigation and prior art analysis.

The acquisition deepens Solve’s investment in patent litigation, adding Palito's strengths in validity analysis, case law research, and European patent workflows to Solve’s existing Charts product. The result is a single platform where IP professionals can handle invalidity claim charts, SEP claim charts, freedom-to-operate and clearance analyses, infringement mappings, claim construction analyses, portfolio analyses, and more.

Solve Intelligence is an AI platform for IP professionals, covering patent drafting, prosecution, and litigation. Palito.ai is a Munich-based startup specialising in AI-powered validity analysis and European patent litigation workflows.

At a glance:

  • Solve Intelligence acquires Munich-based Palito.ai
  • Adds validity analysis, prior art research, EPO/UPC/German court workflows
  • New Munich office established
  • Existing Charts users get expanded litigation capabilities

The Shift Has Already Happened: How Legal's Relationship with AI Changed

Two years ago, the dominant argument in the legal industry was whether AI had any place in the profession at all. That debate is over.

Analysts are now calling 2026 the year AI moves from an “interesting tool” to “operational infrastructure”. The speed at which that narrative has changed tells you everything about where the industry is heading.

Key takeaways

  • The legal profession's central question has moved from "can we trust this?" to "how do we integrate this properly?"
  • AI adoption across IP practice has risen from 57% in 2023 to 85% in 2025.
  • Firms are not just trialling AI tools, they are expanding its use across full workflows. Practitioners using Solve Intelligence grew ~560% in 2025 alone.
  • Clearer regulatory guidance has removed one of the most significant psychological barriers to adoption.
  • The profile of firms now adopting AI has changed: these are not early experimenters, but some of the most demanding legal professionals in the world.