by Daniel Brodsky, UK & European Patent Attorney, Mewburn Ellis LLP
The UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Emotional Perception AI [1] case on 11 February 2026. The decision, which deals with patentability of inventions involving AI, marks one of the most significant shifts in UK patent practice in two decades, and brings about much-needed harmonisation on patent eligibility between the UK and European Patent Office (EPO). This is a positive change for UK applicants operating in AI-based medical diagnostics, as discussed below.
Background
The decision deals with Emotional Perception AI (EPAI)’s patent application, which was directed towards an artificial neural network (ANN) for providing improved file recommendations (e.g. songs) which are semantically similar to an input file based on the file’s physical characteristics. The UKIPO initially rejected the patent application on the basis that the ANN falls within the “program for a computer” exclusion of section 1(2)(c) of the UK Patents Act, with the case subsequently being appealed all the way up to the UK Supreme Court.
A key issue of contention throughout the proceedings was whether an ANN falls under the “program for a computer” exclusion, as well as the UKIPO’s approach for assessing the exclusion.
The Decision
In its decision, the UK Supreme Court concludes that 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.
Crucially, the Court decisively abandoned the longstanding Aerotel test for determining patent eligibility of software inventions, and adopted the European Patent Office’s “any hardware” approach. According to this approach, a patent claim is not excluded from patentability as long as it recites some physical hardware that interacts with the computer program. However only features of the claim which have a “technical character” are taken into account for the assessment of inventive step. For example, computer program steps that relate to a business or administrative method would likely not be seen as having a technical character.
Under this “any hardware” approach, EPAI’s invention was found to be patent eligible. The Supreme Court have therefore sent the patent application back to the UKIPO for assessment of novelty and inventive step.
What it means for the field of medical diagnostics
Under the “any hardware” approach, inventions involving applications of AI to medical diagnostics are, for the most part, unlikely to fall within the “computer program” exclusion, e.g. due to the AI model’s interaction with real-world data. Whilst a similar conclusion would generally have been expected from the previous Aerotel test, the harmonisation with the EPO provides a predictable approach across jurisdictions which is underpinned by a large body of EPO case law.
More generally, the greater harmonisation between the UK and the EPO is good news for UK-based applicants working in software and AI. Whereas the EPO may previously have been the preferred office for first-filings for some AI inventions due to the EPO’s more predictable approach to patent eligibility, the UKIPO now represents an equally viable option. AI companies can therefore now take advantage of the cheaper filing costs at the UKIPO, with greater confidence that the application will not be rejected out of hand.
Please get in touch if you have IP questions with daniel.brodsky@mewburn.com
For the latest developments on AI explained by expert attorneys, sign up to the Mewburn Ellis newsletter.
[1] Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller‑General of Patents – https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0131