ASPA Files Response to IPOS Consultation on Emotional Perception
The Association of Singapore Patent Attorneys (ASPA) has filed its response to IPOS’s feedback exercise on the UK Supreme Court decision in Emotional Perception AI Limited v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2026] UKSC 3.
The consultation concerns the relevance of the decision to Singapore patent practice, particularly in relation to computer-implemented inventions, artificial neural networks and claims involving software, data processing and mathematical methods.
ASPA’s response emphasises that the UK Supreme Court’s decision is not binding in Singapore. UK Supreme Court decisions may be persuasive before the Singapore Courts, but the reasoning must be considered in light of Singapore’s own statutory framework. This is especially important because, unlike the UK Patents Act 1977 and the EPC, the Singapore Patents Act 1994 no longer contains a statutory list of subject matter excluded from patentability as such.
ASPA nevertheless considers that Emotional Perception raises issues of practical significance for Singapore patent practice. The decision rejects the Aerotel-derived “actual contribution” approach in UK law. IPOS’s current Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications at IPOS and Supplemental Guidance for the Examination of AI-related Patent Applications continue to use an Aerotel-derived analysis when considering whether a claim defines an “invention”.
In its response, ASPA invites IPOS to review whether that framework remains appropriate for Singapore practice. ASPA suggests that the threshold inquiry into whether a claim defines a technical invention should be kept separate from novelty and inventive step. ASPA also suggests that the technical character of an invention should be assessed by considering the claim as a whole and the interaction between its features.
ASPA’s response also addresses the treatment of artificial neural networks. It cautions against treating ANN inventions as inherently suspect merely because they involve software, mathematics, learned parameters, weights or biases. Instead, ASPA suggests that the more appropriate question is whether the claim, considered as a whole, is directed to a technical invention and whether the relevant features contribute to the technical character of that invention.
ASPA welcomes IPOS’s consultation and the opportunity to provide feedback on an issue that is likely to be significant for AI-related and computer-implemented inventions in Singapore.