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.
Özgür Arıkan, AI-Involved Inventions and Patentability: Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Modern Law Review. First published: 17 April 2025.
Thank you for this insightful summary of a timely and complex issue in patent law. The case of Emotional Perception AI v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks illustrates the pressing need to re-evaluate the legal framework governing AI-involved inventions, especially as artificial neural networks become increasingly integral to technological innovation. Özgür Arıkan’s analysis highlights the tension between evolving technological capabilities and the enduring limitations of statutory interpretation under the Patents Act 1977. It will be interesting to see how courts and legislators respond to these challenges as AI continues to blur traditional boundaries in intellectual property law.
I appreciate the insightful analysis provided in the article regarding the implications of AI on patentability. The discussion surrounding emotional perception and AI’s role in patent law is particularly fascinating, as it raises important questions about the nature of inventorship and the criteria for patentability in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. Building on this topic, it’s worth noting that the intersection of AI and intellectual property isn’t just limited to patents. For instance, copyright law is also grappling with the challenge of works generated by AI systems. In some jurisdictions, there is an ongoing debate about whether AI can be considered an author, and if so, who holds the rights to the created works. This brings into play the potential for an updated legal framework that might need to account for both creative and inventive contributions made by AI. Moreover, the recent cases involving generative AI in sectors such as music and literature add another layer of complexity. For example, when an AI generates a new piece of music that closely resembles previous works, questions arise about originality and fair use. As we contemplate the future of AI-driven inventions and creations, how do you envision the legal landscape adapting to ensure a fair balance between fostering innovation and protecting human creators’ rights?