The Lawxy Times
UK IPO Rejects Emotional Perception’s AI Patent Application
On 5 October 2026 the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected Emotional Perception’s application for a patent covering an artificial neural network. The refusal diverges from the Supreme Court’s 2024 pronouncement that AI‑driven inventions fall within the statutory definition of “invention” under the Patents Act 1977. The immediate effect is that Emotional Perception cannot secure UK patent protection for its neural‑network technology, limiting its ability to enforce exclusivity against competitors.
Full News Breakdown
The dispute originated when Emotional Perception submitted a patent claim for a novel neural‑network architecture and the IPO invoked the exclusions in the Patents Act 1977 to refuse the filing; the applicant appealed on the basis that the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment had removed the categorical bar. The IPO’s decision was upheld, leaving the claim unpatentable under current UK law.
Case Name: Emotional Perception v. UK Intellectual Property Office
Court: UK Intellectual Property Office (first instance)
Panel: Not applicable (administrative decision)
Date: 5 October 2026
Citation: Not yet reported
UK Legislation Cited: Patents Act 1977 (s 1(1))
Key Provisions: s 1(1) – definition of patentable invention; s 2 – excluded subject‑matter
Primary Legal Issue: Whether a computer‑implemented neural network qualifies as a “manner of manufacture” under s 1(1) despite the Supreme Court’s AI‑invention guidance
Applicant Arguments: The neural network produces a technical effect beyond generic data processing; the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. IPO [2024] UKSC 12 removed the presumption of exclusion for AI‑related subject‑matter.
Respondent Arguments: The claim is directed to a mental act and therefore falls within the excluded category of “methods for the presentation of information” under s 2.
Court’s Reasoning: The IPO held that the claim does not disclose a tangible technical contribution to the art of computing hardware and therefore remains within the excluded mental‑act category.
Holding: The application is refused for lack of patentable subject‑matter.
Operative Order: No patent is granted; the applicant may seek further review under the Patents Court.
Practical Outcome: Emotional Perception must abandon the UK filing or amend the claims to focus on a concrete hardware implementation.
How Does This Affect You?
Before this decision, practitioners faced uncertainty about whether the Supreme Court’s AI‑invention guidance automatically overrode the statutory exclusions in the Patents Act 1977. The IPO’s ruling clarifies that the guidance does not create a blanket exemption; each claim must still satisfy the “technical contribution” test. Consequently, applicants now confront a higher evidentiary burden to demonstrate that their AI‑related inventions produce a concrete technical effect beyond abstract data manipulation.
For Lawyers & Advocates
Re‑evaluate pending AI patent applications to ensure claims are anchored in a specific hardware configuration or a demonstrable improvement to computer performance, because the IPO will scrutinise the technical contribution more rigorously.
Amend draft claim sets to include explicit language describing the interaction between the neural network and physical system components, thereby aligning with the IPO’s interpretation of s 1(1).
Cite the IPO decision as a persuasive authority when opposing competitors’ AI patents that rely solely on algorithmic steps, strengthening invalidity arguments in infringement proceedings.
Advise clients that the Supreme Court’s AI‑invention precedent does not eliminate the need for a “technical effect” analysis; prepare detailed expert reports that quantify performance gains or resource efficiencies.
Monitor forthcoming guidance from the UK Patent Office on “AI‑related inventions” to anticipate procedural changes that may affect filing timelines and fee structures.
For Law Students
The case illustrates that UK courts retain a substantive test for patent eligibility even after a high‑court pronouncement on AI. The central doctrinal tension lies between the statutory definition of “invention” and the policy‑driven desire to foster AI innovation.
The core doctrine to master is the “technical contribution” requirement embedded in s 1(1) of the Patents Act 1977.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:
Patent law fundamentals, especially subject‑matter eligibility.
Computer‑implemented inventions and the evolution of the “technical effect” test.
Judicial interpretation of statutory exclusions under s 2.
Comparable cases include Aerotel Ltd v. Telco Holdings Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1371, which first articulated the four‑step test for patentability, and Symbian Ltd v. Nokia [2008] EWCA Civ 1288, which examined the technical contribution of software. Comparing them with the present ruling highlights how the “technical contribution” analysis has been refined to address AI‑driven claims.
For Businesses
Companies developing AI‑based products must review their R&D documentation to capture any hardware‑level improvements, as failure to do so may render future patent filings vulnerable to refusal.
Boards of technology firms should commission a technical‑effect audit before allocating budget for AI patent prosecution, ensuring that the claimed invention meets the concrete contribution threshold.
Start‑ups relying on AI algorithms for market advantage need to consider trade‑secret strategies alongside patent routes, given the heightened scrutiny of abstract claims.
Key Takeaways
The IPO reaffirmed that the Patents Act 1977 still requires a demonstrable technical contribution for AI inventions, despite the Supreme Court’s earlier AI‑invention guidance.
Patent practitioners must now embed hardware‑oriented language and quantitative performance data into AI claim drafts to satisfy the technical‑effect test.
The IPO can continue to reject AI patents that lack a concrete technical contribution, limiting the scope of judicial review under the Patents Court.
Watch for the UK Patent Office’s anticipated “AI‑Inventions Guidance” expected in early 2027, which may introduce new filing templates or examination checklists.
General Counsels should convene a cross‑functional review of AI IP strategy before the next fiscal year’s budget cycle to align filing practices with the clarified eligibility standards.
