The UK Supreme Court has reshaped the legal framework for AI patentability, aligning UK practice more closely with the EPO. We explain what this means for AI innovators.
Artificial intelligence now underpins modern business. It drives search engines, diagnostics, predictive maintenance and autonomous systems.
Yet for innovative companies, one question has persisted:
Can AI-based inventions be patented in the UK — or will they be dismissed as “just software”?
Until now, the answer was not always clear.
On 11 February 2026, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2026] UKSC 3. The decision reshapes how AI and computer-implemented inventions are assessed in the UK. It also brings UK practice closer to the European Patent Office (EPO).
For businesses investing in AI, this is a material shift.
The case in brief
The patent application covered an AI-driven recommendation system built using an artificial neural network (ANN). The system analysed measurable features of music files, such as tempo and rhythm. It mapped those features into a mathematical model intended to reflect human emotional responses described in text. The objective was to improve recommendation accuracy.
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) refused the application. It concluded that the invention was a computer program “as such” and therefore excluded from patent protection. The High Court upheld that decision under the long-standing Aerotel test.
The Supreme Court has now revisited that approach.
The legal shift that matters to you
For nearly 20 years, UK law applied the four-step Aerotel test to assess whether a computer-implemented invention is excluded. The focus was on identifying a “technical contribution” at the eligibility stage. That framework often led to early rejections.
The Supreme Court has moved away from that test.
Instead, UK law will now align more closely with the EPO’s approach, particularly the framework developed in decision G 1/19.
This is the practical consequence:
Fewer AI inventions should be excluded at the outset simply because they involve software.
But the analysis does not disappear. It moves.
What changes in practice?
Under the revised approach, the first question, which presents a relatively low hurdle, is whether the claim relates to excluded subject matter “as such”? If the claim involves technical means — for example, hardware — it will usually pass this stage.
The real scrutiny comes next.
At the second stage, only features that contribute to a technical solution can support novelty and inventive step. Non-technical elements — such as business logic, presentation of information or abstract mathematical ideas — are filtered out.
This mirrors the EPO’s structured approach. It provides greater predictability, especially for businesses filing in both the UK and Europe. In practical terms, this means that while fewer AI inventions may be rejected outright at the eligibility stage, there is likely to be more focused debate about which aspects of an AI system are genuinely “technical” and therefore capable of supporting inventive step.
The bar for assessing whether an invention is excluded from patentability has not disappeared. However, the structure of the analysis has shifted in a way that is likely to be more predictable and, in appropriate cases, more favourable.
Are neural networks just “computer programs”?
The Court confirmed that an artificial neural network is, in substance, a mathematical model capable of implementation on different hardware. It therefore falls within the concept of a computer program.
However, that does not end the analysis.
A computer program is only excluded if it is a program “as such”. Where a claimed AI system involves a technical means, it is not automatically barred from protection.
The case has been sent back to the UKIPO for reassessment under this revised framework.
What this means for your AI strategy
If your business develops AI, machine learning or data-driven systems, this decision has direct implications.
1. Greater alignment with Europe UK and EPO approaches are now closer. This reduces divergence and improves consistency across jurisdictions.
2. Lower risk of early-stage refusal Applications are less likely to be rejected simply for being software-based.
3. Technical framing is decisive You must clearly define the technical problem. You must show how your system improves processing, performance, resource efficiency, signal handling or hardware interaction.
4. Drafting strategy is critical In AI cases, protection often turns on how the invention is presented. The technical narrative must be precise, evidence-based and commercially aligned.
This is where outcomes are shaped. Quietly. Early. Decisively.
The commercial reality
The Supreme Court decision resets the framework for assessing computer related inventions. The Supreme Court did not decide that the specific AI invention in this case must be granted a patent. Instead, it remitted the case to the UKIPO to apply the revised framework and then assess novelty and inventive step in the usual way.
The message, however, is clear. The UK is not retreating from AI innovation. It is aligning with a more structured and internationally consistent model.
For businesses investing heavily in AI R&D, that reduces uncertainty. It rewards genuine technical advancement. It creates a more stable platform for long-term protection.
That said, success will still depend heavily on how the invention is framed. The patentability of AI-based systems often turns on how clearly the technical problem and technical effect are articulated in the application. Early strategic input at the drafting stage can make a material difference to the scope and robustness of protection ultimately obtained.
We work behind the scenes to ensure that your innovation is positioned correctly from the outset — structured to withstand scrutiny and aligned with your commercial objectives.
If you are developing AI-driven products or data-based systems, we can help you assess how this decision affects your patent strategy in the UK and internationally.
Protection should be deliberate. Structured. And built to last.
Read the full decision here:
UK Supreme Court judgment: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0131_judgment_1da6c10a83.pdf
Supreme Court press summary: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0131_press_summary_2d6299425a.pdf
