- industry
- research
- Non-EPO countries
- SMEs
- lifetime achievement, and
- popular prize.
06 July 2026
Sir Adrian Hill wins the European Inventor Award Research Category
18 February 2026
How will the Emotional Perception Case affect Inventors in the UK?
![]() |
| Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Author Kelsey Farish Licence CC BY 4,0 Source Wikimedia Commons |
The Supreme Court's judgment in Emotional Perception AI Ltd. v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2026] UKSC 3 which was handed down on 11 Feb 2026, reverses nearly 20 years of case law on the meaning and application of s.1 (2) (c) of the Patents Act 1977:
"It is hereby declared that the following (among other things) are not inventions for the purposes of this Act, that is to say, anything which consists of—
......
(c) ........ a program for a computer;
......but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such."
Ever since the Court of Appeal delivered its joint decision in Aerotel Ltd. v Telco Holdings Ltd and others Rev 1 [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 (27 Oct 2006) the courts of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the patent examiners and hearing officers of the Intellectual Property Office ("the IPO") have applied the following test:
"(1) Properly construe the claim.
(2) Identify the actual contribution (although at the application stage this might have to be the alleged contribution).
(3) Ask whether it falls solely within the excluded matter.
(4) If the third step has not covered it, check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical."
In Emotional Perception, the Supreme Court held at para [20] of its judgment that Aerotel should no longer be followed. I explained why in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller in the Supreme Court on 12 Feb 2026 in NIPC Law:
"The Justices noted that the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the Europeam Patent Office had approved in G1/19 Bentley Systems (UK) Ltd/Pedestrian Simulation (Decision G1/19) [2021] EPOR 30) cases that stated that the Aerotel/Macrossan approach was not a good faith implementation of art 52 of the European Patent Convention which s.1 (2) (c) of the Patents Act 1977 is supposed to implement in the United Kingdom. One of those cases held that the Aerotel/Macrossan approach was incompatible with art 52 because that approach had been based on a misunderstanding of the word "invention" as used in the Convention."
As is to be expected, there is a note on the Manual of Patent Practice that the IPO is reviewing the Supreme Court's judgment and that its guidance between para 1.07 and 1.51.7 is subject to change.
How much difference this new guidance may make in practice is uncertain. Mr Justice Birss (as he then was) remarked in para [9] of Lenovo (Singapore) PTE Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2020] EWHC 1706 (Pat), [2020] RPC 18), that “although in methodological terms the approach in the UK and the approach in the EPO may look different, in practice they reach the same result, at least usually.”Also, most UK patent attorneys with experience of software patent applications will have applied for patents to the European Patent Office as well as the IPO and will be familiar with its practice. For those who are uncertain, para 3.6 of the April 2025 edition of the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office should provide most of the answers.
Anybody wishing to discuss an issue related to this topic under my Initial Advice and Signposting Scheme should complete the form. I plan to call an online meeting of the NIPC Inventors Club to explain the Emotional Perception case. Anyone wishing to talk to me can call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.
Further Reading
Jane Lambert Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller in the Supreme Court 12 Feb 2026 NIPC Law:
22 June 2021
EPO launches a Competition for Young Inventors
![]() |
| European Patent Office in Munich Author Karlis Dambrāns Licence CC BY 2.0 Source Wikimedia Commons |
"The jury will consider the following hierarchy when evaluating the supportive documentation submitted with the nominated initiatives (listed in order of descending importance) ...."

The prizes will be presented at a special award ceremony in June 2022.
The winners of this year's European Inventors Award were Per Gisle Djupesland of Norway for a better nasal drug delivery device, Robert N Grass of Austria and Wendelin Stark of Switzerland for DNA-based data storage, Sunita Mitra of India and the USA for restoring smiles with nanomaterials, Henrik Lindström and Giovanni Fili of Sweden for flexible solar cells for portable devices, Karl Leo of Germany for advances in organic semiconductors and Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic of Serbia and the USA for advances in tissue engineering. I congratulate each and every one of those inventors and wish them continued success in the future.
Anyone wishing to discuss this article or inventions and patents generally may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during British office hours or send me a message through my contact form at other times.
18 September 2020
European Patent Office's "Inventors against Coronavirus"
"The suspension of so much business activity to facilitate social distancing does not mean that intellectual property is no longer a priority. On the contrary, it is now more important than ever."
The European Patent Office has magnified that point with a series of videos called Inventors against Coronavirus. It features inventors whose work has already facilitated the world response to the pandemic. Each of those inventors is a winner or finalist of the EPO's European Inventor Award.
The inventors include Rino Rappuoli whose reverse vaccinology 2.0 enables pathogens' genomes to be studied by teams working on vaccines instead of samples of the pathogen itself. Not only is that safer for the researchers but it is faster and more effective. Dr Rappuoli's work is featured in the above YouTube video which has just appeared in the EPO's YouTube channel.
Other inventors featured include Helen Lee whose point of care diagnostic device which was originally developed for HIV can deliver test results in 20 minutes, Thomas Tuschi who has pioneered treatments for COVID-19 and José Ángel Ávila Rodríguez whose work on communications technology has facilitated contact tracing and infection mapping.
As I said in my article
"It will not be just inventors, product designers and engineers who will contribute to this effort. Software developers who will track the spread of infection and the deployment of resources. Artists and communicators will be needed to convey public health information to the public."
Over the last few months, I have advised and assisted on many of those issues as I anticipated when I wrote those words.
Anyone wanting to discuss this article can call me on 020 7494 5252 or message me through my contact page. If you want a chat I shall be glad to call you back by phone, Zoom or Skype.21 August 2017
Patent Revocation FAQ
Jane Lambert
What is meant by "Revocation"?
Revocation means removing a granted patent from the register of patents and cancelling the monopoly of the invention that the patent conferred.
What does that mean in practice?
It means that anyone can make, sell, import or keep your invention without asking your permission. Any action you may bring for the infringement of your patent will fail. You may no longer be entitled to any licence fees in respect of your patent.
Do I get any money back from the EPO or IPO?
Probably not. It's one of the risks that you take when you apply for a patent.
Who can revoke my patent?
The European Patent Office can revoke a European patent in all the countries for which it is granted if someone opposes the grant under art 99 of the European Patent Convention within the first 9 months. The Intellectual Property Office, the Patents Court or IPEC (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) can revoke a European as well as UK patent at any time under s.72 of the Patents Act 1977. The Comptroller (chief executive of the IPO) can also revoke such a patent under s.73.
On what Grounds can my Patent be revoked?
Essentially, the patent should never have been granted.
In the case of a European patent, art 100 EPC sets out the following grounds:
"(a) the subject-matter of the European patent is not patentable under Articles 52to 57;
(b) the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art;
(c) the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed, or, if the patent was granted on a divisional application or on a new application filed under Article 61, beyond the content of the earlier application as filed."The grounds under s.72 are somewhat wider:
"(a) the invention is not a patentable invention;The Comptroller's powers under s.73 arise when an invention was anticipated by an unpublished patent application or where an examiner finds that a patent was invalid under s.74A and his or her opinion is not successfully challenged.
(b) that the patent was granted to a person who was not entitled to be granted that patent;
(c) the specification of the patent does not disclose the invention clearly enough and completely enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art;
(d) the matter disclosed in the specification of the patent extends beyond that disclosed in the application for the patent, as filed, or, if the patent was granted on a new application filed under section 8(3), 12 or 37(4) above or as mentioned in section 15(9) above, in the earlier application, as filed;
(e) the protection conferred by the patent has been extended by an amendment which should not have been allowed."
How can a Granted Patent not be a Patentable Invention?
Let me give you just one example.
As you know an invention must be new. An invention is new if it does not form part of the state of the art. The examiner checks the databases and publications that are available to him or her and publishes details of the invention on the office's website and journal. However, much of the world's new technical literature is now in Japanese, Korean or Mandarin, none of which is widely understood here. There is a risk that the examiner will miss relevant prior art written in one of those languages when an application for a patent is filed. If that prior art finally comes to light it can invalidate the patent.
Can I still rely on Confidentiality, Design Rights or other IPR if my Patent is revoked?
Probably not. Your specification is supposed to disclose your invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art. If it doesn't do that your patent would probably be void for insufficiency. One of the less publicized passages of Mr Justice Whitford's judgment in Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. [1982] R.P.C. 183 is to the effect that you dedicate any copyrights or nowadays design rights in design drawings to the public when you apply for a patent.
What about Costs?
It depends on where the proceedings take place.
Costs in the EPO are usually borne by the parties themselves though the rules do provide for apportionment.
The losing party in the IPO usually contributes a few thousand pounds to the successful party on a fixed scale.
That is also the case in IPEC though the amounts awarded are usually much greater.
Costs in the Patents Court can be many hundreds of thousands of pounds. Revocations are usually brought by way of counterclaim in infringement proceedings or vice versa. According to Taylor Wessing, the costs of a typical patent action are between £200,000 and £1 million.
What can I do about it?
Take the best possible specialist advice when choosing the optimum legal protection for your intellectual assets, applying for such protection, enforcing and defending it. Such advice will not come cheap so it is important to arrange before-the-event insurance or other funding for those expenses. Obtaining IP protection without the means of enforcing it is as risky as travelling to North America without accident and medical insurance.
Further Information
Should anyone wish to discuss this article or patent litigation in general, call me during office hours on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact form.
%20(1).jpg)

