On 11 February 2026, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgment in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [1]. The decision fundamentally changes how UK law assesses the patentability of computer implemented inventions and brings the UK approach into alignment with that of the European Patent Office.

The ruling brings to an end the long-standing framework established in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2] and replaces it with an approach consistent with that of the European Patent Convention, including the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision in G 1/19 [3].

Background to the dispute

The invention concerned a deep learning system designed to recommend music tracks to users by analysing both semantic and musical properties. Two artificial neural networks were trained separately. One analysed semantic descriptors such as mood. The other analysed musical characteristics such as tone and tempo. The outputs of the two networks were combined so that recommendations reflected both emotional and musical similarity.

The UK Intellectual Property Office refused the application under section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977, which excludes programs for a computer as such from patentability.

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trained artificial neural network was not a computer program and that, in any event, the invention made a technical contribution.

The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. It held that an artificial neural network is a program for a computer and that the claimed invention did not make a relevant technical contribution. The invention was therefore excluded.

The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The central legal issue

Section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 excludes certain subject matter from patentability, including programs for a computer, but only to the extent that the claim relates to the subject matter as such.

For nearly two decades, UK courts applied the four-step test from Aerotel to determine whether a claim fell within excluded subject matter. That approach required identifying the contribution of the invention and asking whether it was technical in nature.

Under the European Patent Office approach, by contrast, if a claim includes technical means (even if routine) it satisfies the threshold requirement of being an invention. Questions of novelty and inventive step are then assessed by considering only those features that contribute to the technical character of the invention.

This structured analysis was endorsed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 1/19 and is closely associated with earlier case law such as T 641/00.

The divergence between the UK and EPO approaches formed a central part of the appeal.

The Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and overturned the Aerotel framework.

Overruling Aerotel

The Supreme Court concluded that Aerotel misinterpreted the structure of Article 52 EPC and the concept of “invention.” It therefore overturned Aerotel and aligned the UK approach with EPO practice.

In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that the four patentability requirements: invention, novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability are distinct and sequential.

Are artificial neural networks computer programs?

The Supreme Court held that an artificial neural network constitutes a program for a computer within the meaning of article 52(2)(c) EPC and section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977. An artificial neural network was characterised as a set of instructions capable of being followed by hardware to manipulate data and produce outputs.

However, that conclusion did not determine the appeal.

Not a program as such

Although the invention involved a program for a computer, the Court held that it was not excluded as a program for a computer as such. The claims referred to hardware elements including a database, a communications network and a user device. The artificial neural network could only be implemented on hardware. As a result, the claimed subject matter involved technical means and possessed technical character.

That was sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirement of being an invention.

The intermediate step

The Court explained that once the threshold requirement is met, there is an intermediate analytical step before assessing novelty and inventive step. This involves identifying which features of a claim contribute to its technical character when viewed as a whole. Non-technical features that do not interact with the technical subject matter are to be disregarded when assessing novelty and inventive step.

The Supreme Court did not itself carry out that analysis for the claims in issue. Instead, it remitted the matter to the UK Intellectual Property Office to consider novelty and inventive step under the correct framework.

Practical implications

The decision has immediate and significant consequences for applicants in the fields of software and artificial intelligence.

First, the threshold for overcoming excluded subject matter objections is now lower. Claims that include technical means will generally qualify as inventions and proceed to substantive examination.

Second, UK practice is now aligned with that of the European Patent Office. This promotes greater consistency between direct UK filings and European patents designating the UK.

Third, the focus of examination will shift to identifying which features contribute to technical character and whether those features are novel and involve an inventive step.

A likely practical consequence, and one that will be welcomed by applicants, is a reduction in the UKIPO’s practice of issuing “no search” reports for applications considered borderline excluded subject matter. If the threshold question of excluded matter is now more readily satisfied, more applications should proceed to substantive search and examination rather than being stopped at the outset.

This would enhance the attractiveness of filing first in the UK. Applicants may be more confident of obtaining an initial search at a comparatively modest filing and search cost relative to the European Patent Office. In turn, this could strengthen the UK’s position as a favourable jurisdiction for computer implemented and AI related inventions, particularly at the early stage of portfolio development.

While the decision brings clarity at a structural level, uncertainty remains:

• The Supreme Court did not provide detailed guidance on how the intermediate step should be implemented.
• It left open whether established UK inventive step methodology (such as Pozzoli [4]) may require adjustment. More specifically, the familiar Pozzoli approach to assessing inventive step remains valid although the Supreme Court notes “Whether the conclusions reached on this appeal […] give rise to any need to adjust the methodologies currently used in the UK for assessing […] inventive step […] will have to be left to a case where it arises”.
• The UKIPO is expected to issue practice guidance clarifying how it will apply the new framework. In view of the previous two points, it would seem likely that any such guidance will necessarily evolve as and when any future cases of this type reach the courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court decision in Emotional Perception AI marks a decisive shift in UK patent law. By abandoning Aerotel and adopting the structured approach developed under the European Patent Convention, the Court has harmonised UK practice with that of the European Patent Office.

Artificial intelligence and other computer implemented inventions are no longer at risk of being rejected at the threshold simply because they involve programs for a computer. The critical question will instead be whether the technical features of such inventions are novel and inventive.

If you have any questions about this decision or any other area of UK patent law, please contact one of our attorneys for advice.