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

Page White Farrer Adopts Solve Intelligence for AI-Assisted Patent Drafting

Page White Farrer Adopts Solve Intelligence and Solve's AI Templates

Page White Farrer ("PWF"), a specialist intellectual property firm with a longstanding focus on technology-driven innovation, has selected Solve Intelligence to support patent application drafting following an extensive evaluation of available AI tools. The firm has initially deployed the platform within its technology-focused patent teams, supporting work across sectors such as AI, software, telecommunications, electronics, semiconductors and engineering. 

The firm's objective was not to automate legal judgement or replace attorney expertise, but to accelerate the preparation of high-quality first drafts of patent applications. By combining AI-assisted drafting with custom templates tailored to the firm's preferred drafting approaches, Solve Intelligence helps attorneys move from an initial claim set to a reviewable first draft more efficiently while maintaining consistency and technical accuracy. 

For this partnership, PWF's primary focus was on configuring the platform around the firm's own drafting conventions, client preferences and established best practices, ensuring that the technology supports the way its attorneys already work. 

The Honest Risks of Using AI in Patent Prosecution

AI is changing how patent prosecution gets done, and the upside is real. So are the downsides: hallucinated citations, confidentiality exposure, export-control pitfalls, and prosecution-history estoppel. This is an honest account of the risks of AI patent software in prosecution, and what actually reduces each one.

Key takeaways

  • Anyone presenting AI-assisted content to the USPTO must reasonably review it; relying on the tool's accuracy alone is not enough.
  • Courts have already sanctioned attorneys for AI-hallucinated citations, and similar risk applies to office-action responses and PTAB briefs.
  • The USPTO warns that AI tools on foreign servers can raise export-control, foreign-filing-license, and national-security problems.
  • Grounded citations, exposed reasoning, zero data retention, and attorney oversight are what materially reduce AI risk in patent prosecution.

Maiwald Chooses Solve Intelligence for Selected AI-Supported IP Workflows

Solve Intelligence is proud to share that Maiwald, one of Germany’s largest and most progressive intellectual property firms, works with Solve Intelligence on selected AI-supported workflows in its patent and legal practice groups. Following an evaluation period during which selected functionalities were assessed for approved internal use cases, Maiwald and Solve have formed an enterprise partnership for 2026.

The rollout reflects the same careful approach Maiwald brings to its client work. Solve enables customers in Europe to process data on servers located within Europe and holds recognized information-security certifications. In addition, Solve offers contractual commitments designed to protect confidential professional information in line with applicable statutory confidentiality obligations and professional conduct requirements. Against that background, any use of AI-supported tools took place only within approved governance structures and under applicable professional, contractual, confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

That balance of innovation and professional judgment is characteristic of Maiwald. The firm has spent decades setting a standard for IP work in Europe: rigorous prosecution, a formidable contentious practice, and interdisciplinary teams of patent attorneys and attorneys-at-law working side by side. The firm approached AI the same way, methodically, with a clear sense of where it adds leverage and where an experienced attorney’s judgment remains irreplaceable. 

PTAB Case Studies of AI Disclosure Requirements: Part II

This article is the second of a series of Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) case studies (see Part I), which aims to inform applicants’ approach to satisfying the written description and enablement requirements for patenting artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies.