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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll