On 11 February 2026, the UK Supreme Court in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2026] UKSC 3 held that artificial neural networks (ANNs) are not excluded from patentability merely because they constitute a “program for a computer.” The Court unanimously discarded the long-standing Aerotel test and adopted the EPO’s “any hardware” approach (drawn from the Duns principles and G 1/19).

Under the new framework, the mere presence of—or reference to—hardware in the claims is generally sufficient to clear the excluded subject matter hurdle under s.1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977. Claims reciting a computer, database, network, or user device (as in the Emotional Perception application itself) now qualify as an “invention” eligible for full assessment. The eligibility bar for AI, and computer-implemented innovations (CII) generally, has been materially lowered.

What This Means for Your UK Portfolio

  • Pending applications previously rejected under Aerotel have a renewed path forward. The UKIPO is expected to look favorably on extension requests and to accommodate further correspondence or rescheduled hearings so parties can address the new approach.
  • Explicitly reciting “computer-implemented” or specific hardware elements in claims will typically satisfy the “any hardware” threshold.
  • The UKIPO is far less likely to decline prior art searches on excluded subject matter grounds alone—meaning more AI and CII applications will proceed to novelty and inventive step examination.
  • The UK has now aligned substantively with the EPO’s mixed-invention approach, simplifying coordinated UK/EPO prosecution strategies for global portfolios.

The US Parallel

The US parallel is instructive. As Crowell’s analysis highlights, the UK’s shift echoes developments following the precedential Ex parte Desjardins decision (ARP, Sept 2025; USPTO MPEP update Dec 2025). Both jurisdictions have lowered the initial eligibility threshold—UK via “any hardware,” US via emphasis on technical improvements to computer function or another field—while preserving rigorous scrutiny at novelty, inventive step, and other patentability requirements.

Practical Takeaway

With patent eligibility more easily cleared by mere presence of hardware or technical features in the claim, the examination focus for AI innovations shifts to novelty and inventive step of those features contributing to the technical character of the claim.

Read more from Crowell & Moring in the UK: https://lnkd.in/et4HjU6f