Introduction to article:

It is very difficult to divorce cutting edge tech from the corresponding terms used in patent statute. Without understanding one, you cannot understand the other.

The Court of Appeal, in this appeal #CA2004000036 #EmotionalPerception vs Comptroller of Patents, is therefore tasked with acquiring an understanding of both. To some extent it’s a chicken and egg situation.

On Day 1 of the hearing, it took counsel for the UK Patent Office 1.5 hours to introduce the concept of ANN technology and the invention. This potentially reflects the difficulties faced with deciding on exclusions for new technologies, and the complexity of AI. Today, Emotional Perception hopefully settled some of the muddied waters to support an objective assessment based on the merits of the case and the potential deficiencies in either existing case law [and how it is to be applied] or the confusion that may have arisen from the Patent Office’s line of argument.

We are perhaps likely to see a decision that confirms the nature of “programs for computers” and whether and to what extent ANN technology is patentable in the U.K.

Objective open-mindedness is the order of the day for both sides and the judiciary. Such an approach, leaving any preconceived ideas at home, allows for clarity and longevity in any decision. We expect the decision on this likely important #AI #ANN #patent case to take some time since judgement was reserved, but we would not be surprised if the decision was with us by the end of June.

Skeletons and aspects of the oral submissions have today been made available on our website.