On 14 July 2026, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) published new statutory guidance on how patent applications will be searched and examined following the UK Supreme Court's landmark decision in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2026] UKSC 3.
For innovative businesses developing AI, software, machine learning and other computer-implemented technologies, this guidance provides greater alignment between UK and European patent practice, increased certainty, and a clearer path to protection for genuine technical innovation.
The End of Aerotel and the Start of a More Harmonised Approach
The headline change is that the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that the long-standing Aerotel approach should no longer be followed. Instead, the UK is to interpret Section 1 of the Patents Act in line with the approach developed by the European Patent Office (EPO), particularly the principles established in G 1/19.
This is a major development.
For many years, applicants faced the challenge of navigating two different frameworks when pursuing protection in the UK and before the EPO. While experienced practitioners developed strategies to address these differences, divergence inevitably created uncertainty and additional cost.
The new guidance signals a clear move towards harmonisation. For UK-based businesses in particular, this consistency should make patent strategy simpler, more predictable and UK filings more attractive.
Three-step Framework - A More Sophisticated Approach to AI and Mixed Inventions
The UKIPO's guidance introduces a three-step framework, which mirrors the approach that European practitioners are already familiar with:
- the “first hurdle” – decide whether the subject matter of the claim qualifies as an invention, by applying the “any hardware” approach;
- the “intermediate step” – identify the features of the claim which contribute to the technical character of the invention, viewed as a whole; and
- the “second hurdle” – assess whether the invention is new, then whether it involves an inventive step in relation to the prior art by considering only those features which do so contribute to technical character.
Under the new framework, a claim that involves technical means – such as a computer, processor, storage medium or network – will normally qualify as an "invention" for the purposes of the patentability assessment. The focus therefore shifts away from whether the invention falls within an excluded category and towards whether the invention contains patentable technical innovation.
Importantly, the guidance acknowledges that a patent claim may contain a mixture of technical and non-technical features. Rather than excluding such inventions outright, examiners are directed to identify which aspects contribute to the technical character of the invention and assess inventive step accordingly.
This should be particularly relevant for AI-related inventions, where innovative algorithms often operate in combination with technical systems, sensors, networks and computing infrastructure.
Good News for UK Innovation
The UK economy is increasingly driven by knowledge-intensive industries, with AI continuing to be a major source of investment and growth.
The new guidance sends an encouraging message: the UK remains committed to providing a robust patent system capable of protecting cutting-edge technology.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not weaken traditional patentability requirements. Novelty and inventive step remain essential. What has changed is the framework through which those requirements are assessed. As a result, applicants with genuine technical innovation should benefit from a clearer and arguably more predictable examination process.
For businesses developing AI and software-enabled technologies, the practical implications are significant:
- Greater alignment between UK and EPO examination practice.
- Increased predictability when filing UK patent applications.
- Reduced emphasis on excluded-subject-matter debates.
- Greater focus on identifying and articulating technical contributions.
For patent applicants, the key lesson remains the same: successful patents will be built around clearly defined technical problems and technical solutions. The new framework simply provides a more coherent route for assessing those inventions.
Looking Ahead
The UKIPO's guidance marks one of the most important developments in UK software and AI patent law in recent years.
By embracing a framework that is closely aligned with established EPO practice, the UK has positioned itself as a more predictable and internationally consistent jurisdiction for innovators. That is good news for applicants, investors and technology businesses alike.
For innovative companies seeking to protect AI-driven inventions, the message is clear: the UK patent system remains open for innovation, and arguably for computer implemented inventions now provides a more straightforward path for protecting genuine technical advances than it has for many years.
.png)
.png)