Agne Augustinaite

December 2025

One recent example involves Nvidia’s attempt to secure a patent for methods of playing a video game that uses AI technology. In assessing this case, the UKIPO considered key issues surrounding patentability, offering valuable insight into how such inventions are assessed in the UK.

Technology with artificial intelligence has experienced an extraordinary boom in recent years. This is reflected in the increasing number of patent applications with inventions that integrate AI to their functionality. Interestingly, this has raised many legal questions regarding excluded subject matter, seeing that determining what constitutes a patentable AI invention has become an important point of debate in intellectual property law.

One recent example involves Nvidia’s attempt to secure a patent for methods of playing a video game that uses AI technology. In assessing this case, the UKIPO considered key issues surrounding patentability, offering valuable insight into how such inventions are assessed in the UK.

Invention

The invention in question relates to the use of AI for playing video games. It involves using neural networks that track how a game’s state shifts over time and suggest actions for a player using the collected data. This is achieved by AI processing accumulated environmental changes and player actions to decide what advice to deliver in a given moment, generating tailored, real-time recommendations for the players. For example, if a player encounters a spider, the system can judge whether attacking or avoiding it is the smarter move for the player.

Patentability

At a first glance, the subject matter appears to relate to methods of playing video games, which are known to be excluded subject matter. To determine whether that is the case, the Hearing Officer relied on the test as set out in Aerotel.

In short, to understand whether the invention falls within the excluded subject matter, the actual contribution of the invention has to be identified. The Applicant argued that the contribution is a “better” recommendation system for the player, however, the Hearing Officer defined the contribution more technically. The Hearing Officer described it as the use of one or more neural networks to provide recommendations based on relationships between current and previous game states, using encoded input data.

This was followed by the key question – does the identified contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter or is it actually technical in nature? The applicant made two main arguments as to why the invention should be considered technical.

First, the Applicant argued that the invention relates to game mechanics, not game rules. They pointed out that under the EPO case law, game mechanics, unlike rules, can have a technical effect because they influence how the game operates, not just how it is played. The Applicant also argued that making gaming systems more enjoyable or maintaining player engagement was a valid technical problem. Unfortunately for the Applicant, the Hearing Officer disagreed with these arguments.

Second, the Applicant argued that the invention’s recommendation system was technical in itself. They said the recommendations were objective since they didn’t depend on the player’s opinion, making them technical. The Applicant also argued that the system helped preserve the “open world illusion” in games by offering helpful coaching, further adding to the invention’s technical character.

However, the Hearing Officer rejected these points again. It was noted that the claims were not limited to open-world games, so the Applicant could not rely on this advantage. The Hearing Officer also said the idea of a “better” recommendation was inherently subjective. It was pointed out that the recommendations were simply presented information with no technical effect outside of the computer system as they did not change how the computer operated, did not improve the hardware, did not assist with a technical task, and had no technical character in the way the information was generated or displayed.

Auxiliary Request

In response, the Applicant turned to an auxiliary request specifying that the input data can be biological or biometric data, such as heart rate or blood pressure, which the system can use to provide further recommendations to the player to take breaks from the game. Accordingly, the Applicant argued that this request should be allowed because it required physical input in the form of biometric data, it provided a recommendation or warning to the user, and it resulted in a physical action by the user, such as taking a break.

The Hearing Officer again disagreed. It was pointed out that the invention does not provide a concrete, real-world item that could be manufactured or used outside the computer. It was also noted that many computer programs already use real-world data as an input, but that alone does not create a technical effect. Instead, the problem remained the same – providing a “better recommendation” to a player, which, as the Hearing Officer previously discussed, is not a technical problem to be solved.

Finally, the Hearing Officer concluded that the user’s decision to take a break is a human choice, not a technical effect. There is no physical interaction between the player and the system, and therefore, there is no technical contribution, meaning that the invention falls within the excluded subject matter and the application was rejected.

Summary

This case highlights the reality of AI patenting – no matter how advanced or impactful an AI system feels, it will not qualify for protection unless it has a real technical contribution. AI features are not automatically technical inventions, and without a genuine technical effect, they won’t earn patent protection.