Code, courts, and confusion: The patentability puzzle of neural networks

Comptroller-General of Patents v. Emotional Perception AI Limited stands as a landmark decision at the crossroads of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) and intellectual property law. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that an artificial neural network (ANN)-based media recommendation system is excluded from patentability as a "program for a computer as such" under Section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977, overturning the High Court's earlier decision. The majority opinion contends that ANNs, irrespective of their implementation in hardware or software, constitute computer programs and that the invention lacks a technical contribution beyond this exclusion.

This ruling raises critical questions about the adequacy of current patent law to protect AI innovations. By equating ANNs with traditional computer programs, does the Court risk stifling innovation in a field that increasingly underpins technological advancement? Given the limitations of patent protection for AI technologies, can and should we turn to other forms of intellectual property (‘IP') protection?

This presentation critically examines the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Comptroller v. Emotional Perception AI Ltd, exploring its implications for the patentability of AI technologies and the potential shift towards alternative IP protections. Furthermore, we consider whether the current legal framework is equipped to accommodate the realities of AI or if legislative reform is needed to foster innovation while maintaining the integrity of patent law. Ultimately, we ask: does this decision reflect a prudent adherence to statutory exclusions, or does it highlight a pressing need to rethink how we protect and encourage breakthroughs in AI?