Fintech Patents: 
Allowance Trends At The Canadian Patent Appeal Board

Banks, fintech companies and payment processors who engage in R&D and file patents regarding computer-implemented inventions will want to take note of the Federal Court's Dusome v. Canada (Attorney General) (Dusome)¹ decision, and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office's (CIPO) subsequently-issued guidance (the Guidance).

In Part 1, we examined how CIPO is now approaching computer-implemented inventions post-Dusome in view of the Guidance, and how this applies to financial technologies.

In Part 2, we turn to recent Patent Appeal Board (PAB) decisions to see how the Guidance is likely to be applied in practice, across fintech and financial service innovations.

New CIPO Guidance (Summary)

As noted in Part 1, the Guidance emphasizes that patent claims should be construed "purposively" to identify the actual invention. This means the claims are interpreted in light of the patent disclosure as a whole to determine the actual invention. The Schlumberger question, described below, is then applied to that construction to determine whether the actual claimed invention is patent eligible.

The Schlumberger question asks whether the claimed invention reflects "something more" than an abstract method. According to the CIPO guidance, the "something more" requirement is met where the actual invention claimed either: (i) includes additional physical elements beyond generic computer features, or (ii) reflects a physical improvement in how the computer operates, beyond how a computer normally operates (collectively, the physicality requirement).

As noted in Part 1, what is new in the Guidance is not the Schlumberger inquiry itself, but how it is answered by applying purposive construction. We believe that the Court's and CIPO's post-Dusome approach is more consistent with Canadian jurisprudence and provides greater predictability in the allowance of patents.

Survey of PAB Decisions—Eligible Financial Technology Innovation

Although many PAB decisions were issued under prior CIPO frameworks, we revisit them in light of the Guidance to show alignment with the current approach. In most cases, the prior PAB analyses already reflect and address the Schlumberger question. While these cases may not necessarily have applied Schlumberger with a view to purposive construction principles (i.e., applying the Guidance), they are still illustrative of the types of subject matter that likely meet the physicality requirement under Schlumberger.

To that end, we reviewed approximately 80 PAB decisions, between 2021 and 2025, to identify notable allowed cases involving financial services and fintech-related innovation.

Allowance Trends at the PAB: Key Lessons

Decisions where financial service-type inventions survived eligibility under the Schlumberger standard often anchored the invention in a technical computing problem. The "something more" element typically pertained to: (i) specialized physical hardware; (ii) directly improving computing efficiency; or (iii) indirectly improving computing efficiency.

Conclusion

Claims that frame the invention in terms of a technical computing solution are more likely to satisfy the physicality requirement than those framed at the level of financial logic alone. This points to a clearer path for protecting financial service innovations, whether through integration with specialized hardware or improvements to system performance.

How We Can Help

Our Patent group can help evaluate which aspects of your financial services or fintech innovations may be protectable. For enforcement and defense strategies, our IP litigation team is available to assist.

For related regulatory, transactional and commercial considerations as these innovations are developed and deployed, please reach out to our Financial Services group and FinTech advisory teams.

Please also read and subscribe to our Quarterly FinTech Insights.