In a recent High Court Judgement in the UK, Emotional Perception AI Ltd. successfully appealed a Decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Judgement involves the debate over whether a hardware artificial neural network (ANN) qualifies as a computer or a computer program. The distinction is crucial, as it determines the applicability of certain patentability exclusions related to computer programs, lying at the intersection of legal definitions and the evolving landscape of AI technology.
Until now, AI inventions typically fell at the early-stage hurdle of being excluded from patentability for being a computer program as such, assessed under the four-stage approach established in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd. However, in this particular case, the High Court Judgement revisits the traditional approach and challenges the status quo.
The Judgement examines whether an ANN, which relies on machine learning rather than hand-crafted rules, can be considered a computer or a computer program. Expert testimony highlighted the difference between traditional computer programming and machine learning, emphasizing that ANNs learn from training data and adjust their internal parameters without explicit human programming.
The key question addressed by the Judgement is: where is the computer, and where is the program? The court concludes that a frozen state ANN, which contains biases, weightings, and other learned parameters for data processing, should be considered a computer and not a computer program based on multiple dictionary definitions.
Furthermore, the Judgement emphasizes that any actual program present is only a subsidiary part of the patent claims, as the ANN parameters themselves are not necessarily part of the program. This distinction leads to the finding that the exclusion related to computer programs is not invoked in this case.
Even if there were a computer program, the Judgement argues that it would have technical characteristics, specifically the improved recommendation message. It asserts that the movement of data outside the computer system, such as the transfer of an improved music file recommendation, constitutes a relevant technical effect. This, combined with the method of file selection based on similarity criteria, fulfills the requirement of a technical effect, allowing the invention to escape the exclusion as a computer program as such.
The Judgement’s significance extends beyond this specific case, potentially opening the door for other classifier type inventions in previously unpatentable areas, such as finance. The technicality identified by the Judgement could render similar inventions eligible for patent protection, regardless of what is being selected or recommended.
The implications of this Judgement on the AI sector are substantial. It could influence how patent applications related to AI technologies are processed, potentially leading to an increase in patent protection and litigation within the sector. Additionally, it may prompt lawmakers and regulators to revisit and refine existing frameworks to accommodate the unique characteristics of AI technologies.
The legal recognition of ANNs as computers and the resulting clarity in their legal status could foster a more conducive environment for innovation and collaboration within the AI sector. With a solid legal foundation, entities may feel more secure in investing resources and efforts into the development of AI technologies.
As the AI sector continues to evolve and push boundaries, it is essential for legal frameworks and regulations to keep pace. The recent Judgement on hardware ANNs serves as a reminder that ongoing dialogue between the legal and AI communities is crucial for ensuring a balance between fostering innovation and addressing societal concerns.
