The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered judgment in Emotional Perception AI Limited (Appellant) v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Respondent) [2026] UKSC 3 on 11 February 2026. The Court allowed the appeal unanimously, set aside the UKIPO's decision refusing the patent application, and remitted the matter to the UKIPO for assessment of novelty and inventive step. The decision has immediate operative effect and withdraws the UKIPO's 30 January 2025 guidelines on AI patents pending revised guidance.
The Court's decision rests on three holdings, each addressing section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977, which implements Article 52(2)(c) and (3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). First, the Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 four-step contribution test is overruled. The Court held that the Aerotel approach conflated the question of patentable subject matter with the separate requirements of novelty and inventive step, creating an idiosyncratic divergence from settled EPO jurisprudence. Second, UK courts must follow the Enlarged Board of Appeal's approach in Bentley Systems (UK) Ltd/Pedestrian Simulation (G1/19) [2021] unless the EPO approach is plainly wrong or beyond the ambit of reasonable difference of opinion, and G1/19 does not satisfy either criterion. Third, applying the G1/19 three-stage approach: (a) the "any hardware" test, whether the claim involves technical means, sets a deliberately low threshold; (b) an intermediate step filters non-technical features for the purpose of assessing novelty and inventive step; and (c) only features contributing to technical character may support the inventive step analysis.
The practical consequence for AI and software patent applicants in the UK is that claims involving any hardware element, computer hardware, a database, a communications network, or a user device, will pass the initial subject-matter threshold even if the core contribution is computational or data-driven. Patent applicants and their advisers must now align UK prosecution strategy with EPO practice: claims should identify and articulate the technical character of AI models, and specifications should explain the technical purpose and effect of AI components rather than relying solely on functional or data-processing language. Applicants with pending UK applications that were rejected under the Aerotel contribution analysis should assess whether the new G1/19-aligned approach provides grounds to challenge those decisions or to resume prosecution.
The UKIPO withdrew its 11 February 2026 AI patent guidelines immediately following the judgment. New guidelines are anticipated. During the interim period, the Court's statement that the UKIPO and lower courts should "consider [the intermediate step] in future cases" signals that the scope and application of that step remains to be worked out through examination practice and case law.
Our firm advises technology companies, AI developers, and patent applicants on UK and European patent prosecution, patent portfolio strategy, and IP dispute resolution. We have a dedicated partner network covering UK intellectual property law and AI regulation. Contact us to discuss the effect of [2026] UKSC 3 on your applications: work we undertake includes AI patent prosecution, patentability opinions, UK and EPO alignment strategy, patent validity challenges, and IP licensing.
Source: UK Supreme Court, Emotional Perception AI Limited (Appellant) v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Respondent), [2026] UKSC 3, Case ID UKSC/2024/0131, judgment 11 February 2026, https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0131 (confirmed 3 May 2026); Patents Act 1977, section 1(2)(c); European Patent Convention, Article 52(2)(c) and (3).
The information provided is not legal, tax, investment, or accounting advice and should not be used as such. It is for discussion purposes only. Seek guidance from your own legal counsel and advisors on any matters. The views presented are those of the author and not any other individual or organization. Some parts of the text may be automatically generated. The author of this material makes no guarantees or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of the information.