Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Redefines Patent Landscape for AI Systems

In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court has fundamentally reshaped the assessment of patentability for computer-implemented inventions, including artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The decision in Emotional Perception v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks saw the Court move away from the previous, more restrictive approach to assessing whether computer-implemented inventions are patentable and instead align UK law more closely with the European Patent Office’s (EPO) position.

While the Court confirmed that artificial neural networks (ANNs) are a form of computer program, it made clear that AI-based inventions are not automatically excluded from patent protection simply because they involve software.

The decision lowers the initial hurdle for AI and software-related patent applications in the UK, although such inventions must still demonstrate a genuine technical contribution to succeed.

The ruling has significant implications for AI-driven systems in construction, engineering, design and insurance technologies.

Key takeaways

• The UK Supreme Court has adopted a more permissive approach to software and AI-related patents.
• AI systems are not excluded from patent protection merely because they are computer-implemented.
• Where an invention involves hardware (such as computers, sensors or monitoring devices), it will generally pass the initial threshold test.
• However, patents will still only be granted where the invention delivers a genuine technical contribution.

Background

Emotional Perception AI Limited developed an AI system capable of recommending media content (such as songs) based on analysing their physical properties rather than relying on human-generated labels.

Its patent application was refused by the UK Intellectual Property Office on the basis that the invention was effectively a computer program and therefore excluded from protection. Following a series of appeals through the High Court and Court of Appeal, the case reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court took the opportunity to reconsider how UK law treats computer-implemented inventions. While confirming that AI systems such as neural networks are forms of computer programs, the Court held that inventions implemented using hardware are not excluded from patentability at the outset simply because they involve software. As a result, the invention was not excluded from patentability and the application was allowed to proceed.

Commentary

This decision is likely to be significant for construction professionals, engineers, architects and technology developers operating in the built environment, as well as their insurers.

AI-driven systems are now embedded across construction technology, from predictive maintenance platforms and BIM optimisation tools to structural monitoring software and automated design support. Under the former framework, applications of this kind were often refused at an early stage as excluded computer programs. The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the EPO’s approach lowers that initial barrier. Where an AI system is implemented using conventional hardware, for example, through sensors, monitoring devices or control systems, it will ordinarily satisfy the threshold requirement of technical character. For clients investing in AI-enhanced engineering solutions, the prospects of securing UK patent protection are therefore improved.

However, the decision does not make software patents easy. Only features contributing to technical character can support inventive step; business logic and abstract modelling will be ignored. The invention must demonstrate a genuine technical effect, not merely commercial value.

The Court’s alignment with EPO authority also improves certainty. For businesses filing in both the UK and Europe, divergence risk is reduced and drafting can be more closely aligned.

Concluding thoughts

The Supreme Court’s decision represents a decisive shift in UK patent law. AI and software-based inventions now face a lower threshold at the excluded subject matter stage but remain subject to rigorous scrutiny as to their technical contribution.

For those operating in the built environment, the judgment highlights the increasing importance of understanding the legal and commercial implications of developing and deploying AI-driven tools and software systems across construction projects.

We are increasingly advising clients on the use of software and AI-driven systems across construction projects and the wider built environment. If you have any questions about the issues discussed in this article, or how they may affect your business, contract drafting, negotiations or projects, please contact Andrew Croft or Anna Benz.