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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll