Today, 11 February 2026, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgment in Emotional Perception AI Limited v. Comptroller General [2026] UKSC 3, revising the foundational test for patent eligibility of software and AI-related inventions.
The Court unanimously allowed an appeal concerning the patentability of a system using an artificial neural network (ANN) to recommend media files based on emotional similarity. The ruling replaces the long-standing Aerotel framework with the European Patent Office’s “any hardware” approach, materially altering how software and AI-based inventions will be assessed in the UK.
The application at issue described a method using an ANN to analyze media content and recommend files that produce similar emotional responses. The UK Intellectual Property Office had refused the patent under section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977, which excludes “programs for computers… as such.” The High Court reversed that refusal, but the Court of Appeal reinstated it, applying the four-step Aerotel test that has governed UK practice since 2006.
Commenting on the case, Ben Husband, Partner at Carpmaels and Ransford, told AI-360: “The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that the long-standing Aerotel approach for assessing the patentability of inventions relating to programs for a computer, as such, in the UK should be abandoned. The Court has ruled that the assessment should follow the approach adopted by the European Patent Office (EPO).
“It is clear from the judgment that the first step of the EPO’s approach should be followed to determine whether an invention is excluded from patentability as being a program for a computer (the so-called “any hardware test”). It is also clear that the EPO’s intermediate step should be followed to determine whether each claimed feature contributes to the technical character of the invention as a whole. However, the Court has indicated that the approach to the analysis of inventive step by UK Courts should not be changed, although it may require some modification. Therefore, it does not appear as a wholesale adoption of the EPO’s approach by the UK Courts and the UK Intellectual Property Office.
“For the appellant, the Court has ruled that an artificial neural network is a computer program, but that the subject matter of Emotional Perception’s patent application is not excluded from patentability, and the UKIPO’s Hearing Officer must now determine whether the features of the invention which contribute to its technical character can be considered to involve an inventive step.
“This is a positive outcome for patentees considering the UKIPO as a forum for protecting software and AI inventions, as patentees should receive a more in-depth assessment of patentability.”
The decision has reframed patent eligibility for computer programs. It also signals closer procedural alignment between UK and EPO practice, potentially simplifying cross-border filing strategies. At the same time, substantive scrutiny will shift to whether claimed technical contributions survive the intermediate filter and inventive step analysis, reinforcing the importance of drafting claims that articulate concrete technical effects rather than abstract algorithmic advantages.