{"id":2756,"date":"2026-03-18T15:40:23","date_gmt":"2026-03-18T15:40:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mathys-squire.com\/scaleup-quarter\/?p=2756"},"modified":"2026-03-19T09:38:52","modified_gmt":"2026-03-19T09:38:52","slug":"emotional-perception-and-first-filing-strategies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mathys-squire.com\/scaleup-quarter\/emotional-perception-and-first-filing-strategies\/","title":{"rendered":"Emotional Perception and First Filing Strategies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>
\n
\n

Emotional Perception and First Filing Strategies<\/strong><\/h1>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>
18 March
2026<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n \n
\n
\n \n
\n

10 mins<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

On the 11th<\/sup> of February, the UK Supreme Court announced their decision in the case of ‘Emotional Perception AI Ltd (Appellant) v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Respondent).’<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Written by: <\/em> Oliver Jones<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The long-anticipated Supreme Court judgement<\/a> in the case of Emotional Perception AI vs Comptroller General of Patents has a sweeping impact on not just the way AI inventions are assessed at the UKIPO, but also how any ‘mixed-type’ invention (i.e. inventions that include a mixture of technical and non-technical features) should be considered. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In particular, the judgment overturns the 20-year precedent of the Aerotel test which, until recently, was the primary method of assessing mix-type inventions such as those involving AI. In some instances, this would lead to objections before an application had been searched on the grounds that the invention is directed to something not eligible for patent protection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this ruling mean for businesses?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

While the ruling provides a lot of much-needed clarity to how subject matter eligibility should be assessed, it will still take some time for us to understand how the ruling will affect the UKIPO’s examination practice. Nonetheless, the ruling also aligns UK practice far more closely with the approach of the EPO<\/a> by splitting the assessment of subject matter eligibility into two hurdles. The first hurdle is far lower than that established in Aerotel and the more substantive second hurdle is now considered as a part of the assessment of inventive step. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This may not seem like a significant change, since a patent still needs to not fall into one of the exclusions, and the assessment is simply moved to later in the process. Nonetheless, this small change should have a big increase in certainty for businesses and make the decision on where to file first far easier, as crucially, the assessment of inventive step is after an application has been searched. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

First filings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Filing a patent application can be expensive, even more so when managing an international portfolio of applications, but there are strategies to help spread these costs over time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Typically, it is best not to file patent applications in all the jurisdictions of interest at once and instead file in a single location first (i.e. your first filing). It is also a good idea to make use of the Paris Convention priority period to give yourself a further 12 months before you need to think about international jurisdictions or PCT applications. 12 months can be a significant period of time for start-ups and SMEs to secure funding, validate products and develop their commercial offering. Furthermore, having an initial filing from which to claim priority allows companies to discuss their product with third parties without risk of invalidating their own IP. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a strategy perspective, a single first filing also means that applicants can get an initial indication of an application’s prospects for a relatively small investment compared to international filings.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Filing at the UKIPO is\u00a0great value\u00a0in this regard. With official fees of \u00a3310 for 25 claims (increasing to \u00a3405\u00a0in\u00a0April 2026), an applicant can get a high-quality search typically within 6 months, giving plenty of time\u00a0to\u00a0review,\u00a0assess\u00a0and\u00a0plan\u00a0an international strategy,\u00a0without breaking the bank. Compare this to the EPO, which charges EUR 1645\u00a0for only 15\u00a0claims\u00a0(increasing to EUR 1730\u00a0in April 2026).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if the UKIPO already offered this service, how does the new ruling impact this strategy?  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI, computer-implemented and mixed-type inventions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Provided that the application meets subject matter eligibility requirements, the above provides businesses with a cost-effective way of getting an early steer on strategy before considering international filings.  However, when the Aerotel test was the standard, the  experience of applicants whose inventions related to certain subject matter, particularly those related to AI, computer-implemented inventions or inventions related to one or more of the exclusions in the Patents Act recited below (so-called \u2018mixed type\u2019 inventions) was often very different. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exclusions from patentability<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

To summarise, the Patents Act 1977 excludes inventions from patentability only to the extent that it relates to the following as such: <\/p>\n\n\n\n