The intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property law continues to be a challenging area, especially regarding the patentability of AI-powered inventions. The recent UK Court of Appeal decision in Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI has added new complexity to this field. The case centres around whether an AI system designed to interpret human emotions can be patented and again looks at the often-contentious issue of the exclusion of computer programs from patentability under UK law.
Background: The Emotional Perception AI Invention
Emotional Perception AI, a company focused on creating technology that analyses human emotions through facial expressions, voice patterns, and other biometric data, developed an AI system intended to enhance human-computer interaction. This innovation has significant potential in various fields, such as mental health and customer service, by enabling machines to respond empathetically to human emotions.
High Court Decision: A Landmark Moment?
The High Court had to decide whether Emotional Perception AI's invention could be patented, considering the exclusion under Section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977, which excludes computer programs "as such" from patentability. The High Court ruled in favour of Emotional Perception AI, determining that the invention was not merely a computer program but an innovative application of AI with real-world impact, and was therefore capable of being patented.
This ruling suggested a potentially groundbreaking precedent for AI-related patents in the UK.
Court of Appeal Decision: A Spanner in the Works
The Court of Appeal has now overturned the High Court’s decision, ruling that Emotional Perception AI’s invention does, in fact, fall within the computer program exclusion. The Court of Appeal’s ruling is significant not only for the parties involved but also for the broader landscape of AI innovation in the UK.
The Court held that while the invention was innovative, it did not meet the "technical contribution" threshold required to overcome the exclusion of computer programs from patentability under the 1977 Act. The Court reiterated that merely using a computer program for a novel purpose does not automatically make it patentable. Instead, there must be a demonstrable improvement in the functioning of the computer or an advancement in a technical field directly attributable to the program.
This decision underscores the stringent requirements for patenting AI inventions in the UK, particularly those involving software. It also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by innovators in securing intellectual property protection for AI technologies, where distinguishing between a patentable invention and an excluded computer program remains difficult.
The Computer Program Exclusion and AI Innovation
The exclusion of computer programs from patentability is well-established in UK law to prevent the monopolisation of abstract ideas and algorithms. However, this exclusion presents a significant challenge for AI developers, whose innovations often blur the lines between software and hardware and between abstract concepts and practical applications.
The Court of Appeal's decision reaffirms the narrow interpretation of what constitutes a "technical contribution." For AI innovators, this means that even groundbreaking advances may not be eligible for patent protection unless they clearly demonstrate an improvement in a technical field. This strict approach could potentially stifle innovation, as companies may be less inclined to invest in AI research and development if the resulting inventions cannot be adequately protected.
Implications and the Road Ahead
The Emotional Perception AI case underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to patenting AI inventions. As AI continues to evolve and permeate various aspects of life, some would argue that the legal frameworks governing intellectual property must surely adapt to these advances. The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the courts will likely face increasing pressure to clarify the boundaries of patentability in this rapidly changing field.
For now, AI developers must carefully consider how their inventions fit within the current legal framework and whether alternative forms of intellectual property protection, such as trade secrets or copyright, might offer more reliable safeguards. The Court of Appeal’s decision is a reminder that while AI is at the forefront of technological innovation, the path to securing patents for AI-driven inventions remains fraught with challenges.
In summary, the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Emotional Perception AI has thrown a spanner in the works for AI innovators, reinforcing the hurdles posed by the computer program exclusion under UK patent law. As AI technology continues to advance, the legal community and innovators must grapple with how best to protect and promote these cutting-edge developments within the existing IP framework.
Please get in touch with the contacts below if you have any questions about protecting IP in AI solutions, or to discuss legal issues relevant to AI generally.
Contributors
Associate
Partner
