IPOS Seeks Industry Views on UK Supreme Court’s Landmark AI Patent Ruling

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has launched a feedback exercise inviting IP practitioners to share their views on the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Emotional Perception AI Limited v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2026] UKSC 3. Submissions are open from 17 April to 14 May 2026 [1].

The Emotional Perception Decision

The decision concerned a system for recommending media files, such as music, based on perceived emotional content, using a trained artificial neural network (ANN). The central question was whether such a system constitutes patentable subject matter.

The UK Supreme Court rejected the longstanding Aerotel approach to patent eligibility for software inventions, setting out a new framework that aligns more closely with that of the EPO. Under this new approach, if a claim includes any physical hardware, such as a computer, it passes the initial eligibility assessment. The assessment of inventive step then follows, with only "eligible" claim features to be taken into account. The Court held that while an ANN is an abstract entity, a claimed system incorporating one passes the eligibility test because an ANN can only be implemented on some form of computer hardware.

The Approach in Singapore

IPOS's examination practice follows the UK Aerotel/Macrossan test, requiring examiners to properly construe the claim, identify the actual contribution of the invention, and determine whether that contribution falls exclusively within excluded subject matter. Under this approach, an AI algorithm merely running on generic hardware does not, by itself, confer patentability.

The Three Questions IPOS Is Asking

IPOS has invited practitioners to respond to three questions:

1. Is Emotional Perception relevant to the development of patent practice in Singapore, and which aspects are most pertinent?
2. To what extent does the decision provide clarity and certainty regarding patentable subject matter and its interaction with inventive step?
3. What issues or challenges could arise for patent applicants and practitioners from the approach set out in the decision, and how might these be addressed?

Why the Questions Are Not Straightforward

These are tricky questions in the Singapore context. Unlike the UK and EPO frameworks, Singapore's Patents Act does not contain an explicit list of excluded subject matter, and the exclusions have instead been developed through case law and examination practice, often via analogy with the UK. The extent to which the decision's emphasis on "technical character" translates meaningfully into Singapore law is not immediately clear, given that this concept is closely associated with the EPC framework, which does not form part of Singapore's legislative background.

Notably, the Singapore Court of Appeal has remarked that Singapore is not obliged to follow EPO jurisprudence [2]. This raises a real question as to whether Singapore should, or will, follow the UK's new direction, even if the practical outcomes in many cases might be similar.

The feedback exercise is a timely opportunity for practitioners to help shape how Singapore's approach to AI and computer-implemented inventions continues to develop. We would encourage anyone active in this space to contribute their views before the 14 May 2026 deadline.

[1] Feedback exercise paper and submission form available at https://form.gov.sg/69dc984ffac2deafba3ff991

[2] Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 18  https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2018_sgca_18