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).
Although Dusome involved a poker card wagering game, its reasoning applies broadly to computer-implemented inventions, including financial-related computer technology.
In this Part 1, we briefly examine how CIPO is now approaching computer-implemented inventions post-Dusome, and how this applies to financial-tech innovation.
In Part 2, we draw on our survey of Canadian Patent Appeal Board (PAB) decisions to highlight patterns in what is likely patentable for financial technologies.
Post-Dusome: CIPO’s Updated Guidance
In Dusome, the Federal Court set aside the Commissioner of Patents' refusal of a patent application directed to a method of playing a wagering poker game.
The Court found that the Commissioner committed multiple legal errors, including failing to apply proper patent claim interpretation principles, improperly identifying the "actual invention" outside the framework of these principles, and thereby stripping away important elements to collapse the invention into mere mathematical rules and algorithms.
In response, the Guidance, issued March 2026 to address Dusome, now emphasizes applying established principles of "purposive claim construction" to identify the actual claimed invention, in order to assess patent eligibility.
In practical terms, purposive construction involves interpreting the subject matter claimed in light of the patent disclosure, as a whole. Through that lens, only subject matter that qualifies as an "invention" under section 2 of the Patent Act, and is not precluded by subsection 27(8) (e.g., mere scientific principle or abstract theorem), may attract patent protection, provided the remaining hallmarks of patentability are also satisfied.
Having purposively construed the claims, the Guidance then requires the eligibility analysis to consider whether the claimed subject matter has a practical application with "physical existence," and therefore constitutes patent eligible subject matter.
For computer-implemented inventions, the presence of physicality is assessed by the Guidance through answering the Schlumberger,2 question: is the patent claim merely an abstract algorithm running on a conventional computer, or is there "something more"?
According to the Guidance, the "something more" requirement is met where the claimed subject matter either: (i) includes additional physical elements beyond generic computer features (e.g., input sensors, or special physical output means), or (ii) reflects a physical improvement in how the computer operates, beyond how a computer normally operates (e.g., increased efficiency, reduced memory usage or improved execution of the task at hand).
What does the Guidance Change?
What is new in the Guidance is not the Schlumberger inquiry itself, but how it is answered.
While prior CIPO guidance treated the identification of the "actual invention" as a distinct step that could almost operate independently of claim construction, the analysis now turns on purposive construction of the claims to determine what the actual invention is. The Schlumberger question is then applied to the actual invention, as defined through purposive construction, and not through a separate characterization exercise.
This shift may be favorable to applicants. By requiring that the claims be construed purposively in light of the specification as a whole, the analysis may be less likely to strip away key elements of the claimed invention that contribute to "physicality" and reduce it to an abstract concept of mere rules and algorithms.
Example Financial Modelling–Computational Efficiency as Patentable Subject Matter
In addition to the Guidance, CIPO provides companion examples to assist the industry. One such example is directed to portfolio optimization using financial modelling techniques. This example illustrates how financial-related developments can fall within "patentable" subject matter under the Schlumberger standard.
In this example, a portfolio optimization software uses a software "Algorithm A", which selects an optimal investment portfolio. It then applies a further software "Transform B", which simplifies those arithmetic calculations.
While Algorithm A on its own would be treated as an abstract ineligible method, the claim incorporating Transform B is allowable as "something more" under the Schlumberger inquiry. Particularly, by reducing the number of arithmetic operations required to execute the algorithm, Transform B is said to improve how the computer performs the calculations by "improving execution of the task at hand".
This approach is consistent with Choueifaty (Re),3 where the PAB also held that a financial portfolio optimization invention was patentable because it was not merely a financial method, but improved computer processing through reduced computation.
Conclusion
The Guidance sends a positive signal for financial technology patents. It confirms that these inventions are patentable where they can be understood as delivering a practical application or improving computer functionality. The emphasis on purposive construction is more consistent with Canadian jurisprudence and should make prosecution more predictable.
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.
1 2025 FC 1809.
2 Schlumberger Canada Ltd v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [1982] 1 FC 845 (FCA).
3 2021 CACP 3.
Bennett Jones