The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller General of Patents, handed down on 11 February 2026, marks one of the most significant shifts in UK patent practice in two decades. At its core, the Court has decisively abandoned the Aerotel test, concluding that it misinterprets the European Patent Convention and cannot be reconciled with the Enlarged Board’s reasoning in G1/19. Instead, UK law now aligns with the EPO’s “any hardware” approach and the structured Comvik analysis for distinguishing technical and non technical features. This is a major step toward harmonization across Europe.
The Court also addressed a question of real practical importance: what exactly is an artificial neural network for the purposes of patent law? Its answer was unambiguous: an ANN is a “program for a computer”, given that its structure, weights, biases and activation functions operate collectively as instructions processed by a computing device. However, the Court went on to hold that Emotional Perception’s invention was not excluded as a “program… as such”, because it relied on clear technical means including a database, communications network and user device. This is in line with the EPO’s “any hardware” approach. The Court sent the application back to the Hearing Officer at the UKIPO to assess the case through the lens of G 1/19, to determine whether the invention achieves a “further technical effect”, something with which European patent attorneys will be all too familiar.
From a commercial standpoint, this judgment is excellent news. For AI companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, diverging UK practice has long been a source of friction, especially when drafting claims intended to work both before the UKIPO and the EPO. By bringing the UK back into alignment, the Court has provided a level of predictability and legal certainty that will help businesses plan with confidence. For applicants, this means clearer filing strategies, fewer surprises during prosecution, and a more stable foundation for investment, licensing, and due diligence. For patent attorneys worldwide, it signals that the UK is a reliably coherent venue for protecting cutting edge AI innovations.
We will follow up soon with a detailed analysis of the judgment, and any insights that emerge from a deeper dive.
Alex is an IP Director and Patent Attorney at Mewburn Ellis. He specialises in the drafting and prosecution of patent applications for computer-implemented inventions, including those directed towards artificial intelligence (AI) and its application to fields such as bioinformatics and digital health. His work frequently includes arguing in favour of the patentability of software and business method applications at the European Patent Office, during both the prosecution and appeal stages. He works on registered and unregistered designs too, including filing and providing infringement/validity opinions.
Email: alex.burns@mewburn.com
