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

IPO European Committee Conference 2025: A Fireside Chat on IP and AI

At the European Practice Conference hosted by the IP Owners Association in Paris, one fireside chat stood out for its insight and urgency: “IP Trends and Developments in AI.”

The session was led by two highly respected experts: Jean-François Adam, who covers all things European and currently serves as in-house counsel at Infineon Technologies, and Jonathan Osha, founding partner of Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP, who brought the US perspective. OBWB, a long-time thought leader in cross-border IP, was also the hosting sponsor of this year’s event, held at the elegant Hôtel le Marois in central Paris. 

Together, Jean-François and Jonathan offered a compelling look into the evolving challenges of patenting artificial intelligence-based inventions – and why practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic are grappling with inconsistent, outdated frameworks that do not sufficiently reflect the reality of modern innovation implementing AI.

G1/23: Marketed Products Are Prior Art

The Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision in G1/23 on July 2, 2025, addressing whether products put on the market before a patent filing date form part of the prior art when their composition or internal structure cannot be reproduced by the skilled person.

AI Claim Charting - Patent Prosecution

Patent prosecution has always hinged on precision, speed, and strategic foresight. Yet as Office Actions grow in both volume and complexity—often bundling multiple §§102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness) rejections grounded in nuanced claim interpretations and an ever-expanding body of prior art—the traditional toolkit of the patent professional faces serious challenges. Manual claim charting, painstaking annotation of cited references, and labor‑intensive crafting of responses under tight deadlines can create bottlenecks, drive up costs, and leave room for human error.

Enter AI-powered claim charting: a suite of advanced natural language processing (NLP), machine‑learning (ML), and knowledge‑representation technologies that is rapidly reinventing each step of the Office Action workflow. By automating the generation of claim charts, surfacing hidden flaws in Examiner rejections, semantically analyzing claim language, and even proposing targeted response strategies, AI tools are transforming how attorneys and agents prosecute patents.

In this post, we’ll explore four core capabilities of AI‑driven claim charting and how they bring both speed and insight to Office Action responses:

  1. Automated analysis of Examiner rejections
  2. Instant flagging of issues and gaps
  3. Holistic assessment of claim language and prior art
  4. AI‑generated response strategies

The 5 Best Patent Proofreading Software Solutions for Law Firms (2025)

Key Takeaways

  • Proofreading software has become essential: Manual checks can’t keep pace with growing patent complexity and filing volumes. AI solutions can help prevent costly errors, office actions, and post-grant risks.

  • Most legacy solutions fall short of quality control: Many platforms rely on basic rule-based checks, lack real-time drafting integration, and offer limited jurisdictional support, creating workflow gaps and added manual work.
  • Solve Intelligence for AI-assisted patent review: With seamless drafting integration, tracked changes, auto-propagation of edits, and multi-jurisdiction compliance, Solve Intelligence provides unmatched accuracy and efficiency.