header-logo header-logo

11 February 2026
Issue: 8149 / Categories: Legal News , Technology , Artificial intelligence , Patents , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

‘Seismic’ ruling makes AI patentable

It is possible to obtain a UK patent for an artificial intelligence (AI) machine which uses artificial neural networks (ANNs), the Supreme Court has held

Emotional Perception’s AI machine used ANNs to offer music, film and other media viewers file recommendations likely to elicit a similar emotional response. Delivering the judgment, Lord Briggs said that, while such recommendations services are familiar to anyone who checks news items on a mobile phone, Emotional Perception claimed their machine performed more quickly, accurately and made better recommendations than anything currently available.

The ruling this week, in Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2026] UKSC 3, found Emotional Perception’s AI machine does not fall under the excluded category of ‘computer program’. It overturns the Court of Appeal’s decision in 2024, which in turn overturned the High Court. The conundrum of what does and does not fall under the exclusion has been a knotty issue for the courts as technology has evolved.

The Patents Act 1977, which implements the European Patent Convention, lists categories of excluded items, which cannot be an invention and cannot be patented. These are aesthetic creations, rules for playing games, scientific theories and programs for computers (art 52 of the Convention). The question before the court was whether Emotional Perception’s ANN is a program.

The court’s decision abandons the approach to art 52 of the Convention taken in Aerotel v Telco Holdings [2006] EWCA Civ 1371, which has been followed in the UK for the past 20 years. Instead, it follows the ‘any hardware’ approach taken in the so-called G1/19 case, Bentley Systems (UK)/Pedestrian Simulation (Decision G1/19) [2021] EPOR 30, under which the subject matter is not excluded if it embodies or involves the use of a piece of physical hardware, however mundane.

Luke Maunder, partner, Osborne Clarke, said: ‘This represents a seismic shift in how AI-related and software-based inventions may be assessed in the UK. For businesses operating in the AI space, the judgment could open the door to a more harmonised European strategy—but it also introduces a period of uncertainty while the new approach beds in.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll