AI‐Involved Inventions and Patentability: <i>Emotional Perception AI</i> v <i>Comptroller‐General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks</i>

The growing use of artificial intelligence technologies in inventions has significantly increased the number of AI‐involved patent applications. This trend has prompted a reassessment of the boundaries defining excluded subject matter in patent law, as exemplified in Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller‐General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks . While computer programs are traditionally classified as excluded subject matter and as such ineligible for patent protection, exceptions apply to computer‐implemented inventions that demonstrate a technical contribution beyond the ordinary functioning of a computer. The question addressed in Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller‐General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks was whether inventions involving artificial intelligence, particularly artificial neural networks, should be treated the same as conventional computer‐implemented inventions regarding patentability under section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977. Although the High Court adopted a pioneering approach to this issue, the Court of Appeal rejected this approach, and instead adhered to the conventional perspective on computer‐implemented inventions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Modern Law Review
Published
2025-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12954
Primary Topic
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

AI‐Involved Inventions and Patentability: Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller‐General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Özgür Arıkan
Modern Law Review
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
article

AI‐Involved Inventions and Patentability: Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller‐General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Özgür Arıkan
article en

Abstract

The growing use of artificial intelligence technologies in inventions has significantly increased the number of AI‐involved patent applications. This trend has prompted a reassessment of the boundaries defining excluded subject matter in patent law, as exemplified in Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller‐General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks . While computer programs are traditionally classified as excluded subject matter and as such ineligible for patent protection, exceptions apply to computer‐implemented inventions that demonstrate a technical contribution beyond the ordinary functioning of a computer. The question addressed in Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller‐General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks was whether inventions involving artificial intelligence, particularly artificial neural networks, should be treated the same as conventional computer‐implemented inventions regarding patentability under section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977. Although the High Court adopted a pioneering approach to this issue, the Court of Appeal rejected this approach, and instead adhered to the conventional perspective on computer‐implemented inventions.

Modern Law ReviewVol. 88(4)
Boğaziçi University (TR), Marie Curie (GB)
UK Research and Innovation, H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.