Computer Programs & Software Patentability

Advice on software patents and computer-implemented inventions

Patent protection for software-related inventions in the UK often depends on how the invention is analysed under the exclusion provisions and how its technical contribution is identified and claimed. Hepworth Browne advises on computer programs, software patentability and computer-implemented inventions, including prosecution strategy where exclusion and technical character are likely to be central issues.

This is an area where legal precision matters. Existing Hepworth Browne content already addresses artificial neural networks, computer programs and software patentability, and the firm’s Emotional Perception materials add significant depth on the current UK position after the Supreme Court’s decision.

The key patentability issue

UK law excludes “a program for a computer … as such,” but that phrase has always required interpretation in practice. Hepworth Browne’s published materials on Emotional Perception explain that the Supreme Court revisited the structure of the UK approach and concluded that the Aerotel method was unsound, replacing it with the “any hardware” threshold for the exclusion stage.

That is a major change, but it does not mean every software invention is patentable. The firm’s published commentary also makes clear that the important next question is which features contribute to the technical character of the invention as a whole, because those features are central to the later patentability analysis.

What the Supreme Court decision means

Hepworth Browne’s published commentary presents the decision as a material change in practice and indicates that one of the major hurdles to acquiring UK rights has now been removed through the move to any hardware. It also emphasises that two further points remain central: the invention must be considered as a whole, and feature interactions must be properly assessed when dealing with inventive step.

For software-heavy inventions, that means the argument cannot stop at whether code is present. The firm’s materials repeatedly point toward the importance of the function of the invention, the interaction of claim features, and the technical role played by those features.

Why this matters for software and CIIs

Many commercially important products are mixed inventions that combine software, business logic, data handling and technical processing. Hepworth Browne’s published materials show why that makes invention framing critical, especially where the key issue is whether the relevant features contribute to the technical character of the invention as a whole.

That has practical consequences for drafting and prosecution. If the invention is framed too narrowly, too abstractly or at the wrong level of generality, the strongest technical interactions may be missed, which can weaken both exclusion and inventive-step arguments.

Areas of support

Hepworth Browne can assist with:

  • Patentability reviews for computer programs and software-heavy products.
  • Claim strategy for computer-implemented inventions and mixed inventions.
  • Advice on technical character, feature interaction and statutory exclusion.
  • Review of objections based on computer program exclusion or related software patentability issues.
  • UK filing strategy where software functionality forms a central part of the invention.

Computer programs, ANNs and modern technologies

One of the most significant aspects of Hepworth Browne’s published commentary is its discussion of what amounts to a computer and what amounts to a program for a computer after Emotional Perception. The firm’s published materials explain that the judgment broadened the definition of a “program for a computer” and addressed ANNs directly, while also leaving difficult issues for practice.

That matters because many modern inventions do not fit neatly into older assumptions about conventional software. Hepworth Browne’s ANN and case-related materials show why labels alone are not enough and why software, AI and technical systems often need carefully prepared patent strategy.

Why Hepworth Browne

Hepworth Browne’s published materials already show specialist focus on AI, computer programs and software patentability, and Bruce Dearling’s public profile on the site highlights extensive experience in software, CIIs and AI. The firm’s existing case materials also show direct involvement in the Emotional Perception litigation.

That combination of subject-matter focus and direct litigation involvement makes the firm well placed to advise on software-heavy inventions, difficult exclusion issues and filing strategy after the Supreme Court’s decision.

For more information, please contact Bruce C. Dearling, Shareholder at Hepworth Browne. E-mail: bcd@hepworthbrowne.com