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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll