UK Supreme Court ruling on patents and AI is boost for innovation, lawyers say

LONDON, Feb 11 (Reuters) – An artificial neural network, a type of artificial intelligence which can engage in machine learning, can be patented, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a decision welcomed by lawyers as a boost for patenting AI innovations. Emotional Perception AI applied for a patent for an artificial neural network (ANN) which can recommend media files, such as music, and which it says is able to produce another file with can evoke a similar emotional response in the user, even irrespective of genre or personal taste. The UK Intellectual Property Office refused the application in 2022, prompting a flurry of appeals before the Supreme Court ruled in Emotional Perception AI's favour on Wednesday. The Supreme Court ruled that a computer program can be patented if it involves the use of physical hardware – which lawyers said was a significant change to the law – and that, as an artificial neural network can only be used on hardware it could in principle be patented. The court sent the case back to the Intellectual Property Office, to decide whether to grant a patent. Following the court's decision, the Intellectual Property Office said the ruling had clarified the law. Patent lawyers said the judgment would have significant implications for applications for all software patents, not just relating to AI, in the UK. Jonathan Ball, a partner with the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright described the ruling as "a major boost for AI innovators", adding that it "could make it easier for AI companies to secure patent protection in the UK". Alex Morgan, from Paul Hastings, said the decision was "consistent with the UK positioning itself as an AI-friendly, pro-innovation jurisdiction and could boost its attractiveness for companies developing advanced machine learning technologies". Lara Sibley, a partner at Marks & Clerks, agreed the ruling may be helpful to applicants for AI-related patents, but cautioned that it remained to be seen how the Intellectual Property Office will interpret and apply it. (Reporting by Sam Tobin, Editing by William Maclean)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)