Some patent applications sail smoothly towards grant but others have to navigate more turbulent waters, hitting wave after wave of objections.
Whether you reach an impasse with a patent examiner at the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) or just need a low-cost forum for a patent dispute, you can request a patent hearing at the UK IPO instead of heading to court – but what are your chances of success? That will of course turn on the facts of a particular case, yet statistics are informative too.
With that in mind, I’ve delved into six years’ worth of recent data (481 UK IPO patent decisions, 13 January 2020 to 12 February 2026) to assess how patent hearings tend to go at the UK IPO.
Excluded Matter
The most common objection dealt with at patent hearings related to excluded subject matter. In the UK, you cannot obtain a patent for a method of doing business, the presentation of information or a program for a computer as such, amongst other things. However, if a UK examiner has maintained excluded matter objections, then the chances of resolving those objections at a hearing are low:
- When the patentability objection was ‘Method of doing business‘, there have been 118 decisions, and only a 4.2% success rate in overcoming that objection.
- When the patentability objection was ‘Presentation of information‘, there have been 20 decisions, and only a 10% success rate in overcoming that objection.
- When the patentability objection was ‘Program for a computer‘, there have been 223 decisions, and only a 5.8% success rate in overcoming that objection.
Overall, out of 245 decisions where excluded matter was one of the objections at issue, 90% of the decisions led to patent refusal or revocation (including 18 separate refusals for a single applicant). So, if you’re heading to a patent hearing to argue against excluded matter objections, overcoming the objections will be a long shot… but it is within the realms of possibility.
Looking forward, the UK Supreme Court issued a decision (linked here) in February 2026 which confirmed that:
- The Aerotel test (linked here), which has regularly tripped up software-related inventions, should no longer be followed, and most of the European Patent Office’s approach in G1/19 should be applied instead; and
- An Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is a program for a computer, but an ANN can only be implemented on some form of computer hardware and so is not excluded from patentability “as such”.
It remains to be seen how this may in future affect the UK IPO’s assessment of whether an invention is excluded from patentability as a program for a computer as such, and whether it shifts objections from excluded matter (computer program) to inventive step.
Inventive Step
The next most common objection considered in hearings at the UK IPO is, perhaps unsurprisingly, inventive step. The picture here is much more balanced. Out of 74 cases where inventive step was considered and relevant to the outcome, 42 decisions led to patent refusal or revocation, giving a 43% success rate of overcoming inventive step objections. Not quite 50:50, but not far off, which is encouraging given that assessing inventive step inevitably involves an element of subjectivity.
So, whilst an examiner may have become entrenched in their view that an invention is obvious, the data supports the notion that a Hearing Officer will make up their own mind as to whether an invention is obvious or not, without being unduly swayed by the primary examiner’s opinion.
Patentability objections – excluded matter takes an easy win – where patentability was at issue, about 50% of the decisions deemed that inventions related to excluded subject matter, with inventive step and sufficiency the next most common issues.
Entitlement And Revocation
Entitlement disputes seem to be occurring more frequently in recent years. The UK IPO serves as a primary jurisdiction for such disputes and issued 33 decisions where entitlement to a patent or patent application was at issue. Some of the decisions related to interim matters, costs or stays, or the UK IPO declining to deal with proceedings. However, 16 decisions resulted in the claimant being entitled to patent rights, whilst only 4 decisions left the patent rights solely with the defendant.
The UK IPO also issued a selection of decisions relating to patent revocation, with the score being 5 patents revoked, 2 patents maintained and 3 patents maintained in amended form (at time of writing, with 1 more patent to be amended or otherwise revoked).
The small sample size and fact-specific nature of the disputes means that there is no inference of the UK IPO favouring claimants in entitlement or revocation actions. Nonetheless, the UK IPO provides a useful forum for dealing with patent disputes at relatively low cost and with limits on recoverable costs (off-scale awards are rare).
Other Matters
A significant number of the decisions involved issues besides excluded subject matter, inventive step and entitlement. For example, novelty (30), sufficiency (34), added matter (24) and clarity (20) were at issue in various decisions, but were usually bundled together with one of the main objections mentioned above.
It is noteworthy that hearings involving restoration/reinstatement of a lapsed patent/application only occurred in a handful of cases (7 decisions), and the Hearing Officer reached a negative decision in every case. So, whilst the UK takes a relatively lenient approach in applying the “unintentional” criterion for assessing whether to restore/reinstate a lapsed patent or application, restoration or reinstatement is not guaranteed. Crafting and submitting a robust explanation of what happened with appropriate evidence in support of the applicant’s/patentee’s intention is important, and hopefully avoids the need for a hearing.
Patent refusal takes the easy win here – where patentability was at issue, around 75% of the decisions resulted in patent applications being refused.
Is a patent hearing worthwhile?
If you are at the stage where a hearing is on the cards, then some of the above statistics may make for depressing reading. Some would say that all statistics make for depressing reading. But statistics only tell the story on a large scale – they don’t account for the nuanced, case-specific facts and arguments that can be critical in swaying a Hearing Officer’s mind and resolving an objection.
Just because a UK patent application is staring down the barrel of a hearing doesn’t mean that all is lost. Some inventions inevitably lie at the boundaries of what is or isn’t patentable; and a carefully-worded claim amendment or skilfully-delivered argument can make all the difference in getting (or keeping) a granted patent.