An artificial intelligence system designed to recommend music tracks based on their emotional qualities has triggered a landmark ruling from the UK Supreme Court that could make it easier to patent AI-driven inventions.
The case, Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, marks the first time the Supreme Court has directly addressed how UK patent law applies to the new generation of computer-implemented invention.
At its heart was a dispute over whether an invention based on an artificial neural network (ANN), which is a form of machine learning, could qualify for patent protection or whether it should be excluded as simply a “computer program as such”. This is a long-standing basis for exclusion and the reason why the application had been refused by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).
For nearly two decades, courts have relied on the so-called Aerotel test, a four-stage approach used to determine whether a computer-related invention fell within the statutory exclusion for computer programs. The Supreme Court ruling concluded that the Aerotel framework blurred the line between deciding whether something counts as an “invention” and whether it meets other patent requirements such as novelty and inventive step.
While the Supreme Court also confirmed that artificial neural networks themselves can still be regarded as computer programs, as they are systems that process numerical inputs and perform mathematical operations to produce outputs, the court emphasised that such inventions are not automatically excluded.
Instead, the court endorsed an approach closer to that used by the European Patent Office: if the system interacts with hardware - for example databases, communication networks or user devices - the invention may possess the “technical character” required for patent protection. Under this model, if a claim involves any form of hardware, it can satisfy the initial requirement of being an invention.
In practical terms, this means many AI-related innovations that interact with hardware or real-world systems may now be more likely to pass the initial hurdle of patent eligibility. While this sets a relatively low threshold at the first stage, more substantive questions, including whether the invention is genuinely new and inventive, will be assessed later in the process.
But the Supreme Court stopped short of deciding whether Emotional Perception AI’s own invention ultimately qualifies for patent protection, instead returning the case to the Patent Office to apply the newly clarified approach. That process will involve analysing which elements of the invention contribute to its “technical character” and whether the remaining features are genuinely novel and inventive.
Julian Milan, our experienced Corporate law solicitor explained: “This case involved a tech company’s machine-learning music recommendation system, but the implications reach far beyond the technology sector.
“Increasingly, businesses across all sectors and industries are experimenting with AI: from logistics optimisation to automated analysis tools. As these technologies become embedded in everyday business operations, more organisations may find themselves developing innovations that could potentially be patented.”
Julian Milan added: “It will take a little time to see how this, and further cases, work their way through the system, and how this new framework is applied in practice. But this ruling certainly opens the door to potentially exciting opportunities for both tech developers and those exploring AI solutions for their business delivery.”
How we can help