People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Ahmed Elmallah

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Counsel, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Roseann Caldwell

Canadian and United States Patent Agent at Bennett Jones Calgary

Patent Agent

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Partner, Trademark Agent

This update analyzes recent Patent Appeal Board decisions to identify trends in the allowance of fintech and financial services patents in Canada. It shows that patentable claims typically frame innovations as technical solutions&mdash;such as improving computing efficiency or integrating specialized hardware&mdash;rather than purely business methods. These trends align with post-Dusome guidance and provide practical insight into how fintech inventions can meet patent eligibility requirements.

Fintech Patents Allowance Trends At The Canadian Patent Appeal Board

Part 2 Fintech Patents: Allowance Trends At The Canadian Patent Appeal Board

This update reviews the Federal Court&rsquo;s *Dusome* decision and CIPO&rsquo;s new guidance on patent eligibility for computer-implemented inventions in Canada. It highlights a shift toward purposive claim construction and clarifies that fintech innovations may be patentable where they demonstrate a practical application or improve computer functionality. The guidance offers greater predictability for applicants, particularly in financial technology contexts.<br />
<div>&nbsp;</div>

Fintech Patents New Eligibility Guidance In Canada

Part 1 Fintech Patents: New Eligibility Guidance In Canada

Edward (Ted) Yoo

Patent & Trademark Agent | Biotech, Pharma & Tech Innovations

Partner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Lorelei Graham

IP Lawyer | Food & Agribusiness

Partner

<p>How an AI system is commercialized and deployed also affects whether patent protection is appropriate. In many cases, the degree of control retained by the provider over the deployed system acts as a counterweight to other considerations that might otherwise favor trade secret protection.</p>

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool IV

The Business Delivery Model

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor IV

<p>This article forms one part of a broader decision framework for evaluating whether patent or trade secret protection is appropriate for AI innovation.&nbsp;The framework is designed to help decision-makers (e.g., innovaters, in house, CTOs) align patent and IP strategy with underlying business realities and moving beyond purely "legal" considerations.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Within that framework, this article addresses a second decision factor: what is the realistic patent scope for the AI innovation?&nbsp;An AI patent with meaningful scope can block competitors from implementing commercially viable alternatives. Assessing enforceable scope therefore requires focusing on some of the following factors: (a) competitor blocking potential; (b) detectability of infringement; and (c) divided infringement.</p>

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool II

The Enforceable Patent Scope

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor II

Ruth E. Promislow

Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer

Caroline Poirier

IT, Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer

Suzie Suliman

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate, Trademark Agent

The 2025 GPEN Sweep highlights growing global scrutiny of how digital platforms handle children&rsquo;s personal information, revealing increased data collection alongside limited safeguards. While improvements have been made in areas such as account deletion, significant gaps remain in effective age assurance, transparency, and protective design. The findings signal that regulators are likely to intensify guidance and enforcement efforts to better protect children&rsquo;s privacy online.

Global Privacy Sweep Highlights Growing Expectations for Childrens Privacy Online

Global Privacy Sweep Highlights Growing Expectations for Children's Privacy Online

Nina Butz

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Jackson Spencer

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

This article highlights recent decisions demonstrating courts&rsquo; strict approach to certifying privacy class actions in Canada. It shows how failures to establish an identifiable class, viable claims, or compensable harm can be fatal at certification. The rulings reaffirm courts&rsquo; gatekeeping role and signal continued challenges for plaintiffs advancing privacy-based claims.

Courts show Continued Commitment to Closely Scrutinizing Proposed Privacy Class Actions

Recent Decisions Reinforce Certification Challenges

Courts Continue Close Scrutiny of Privacy Class Actions

Emrys Davis

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

Ana Nizharadze

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

This article examines the growing wave of drip pricing class actions following recent amendments to the Competition Act. It analyzes key Federal Court decisions that clarify how courts assess &ldquo;unattainable prices,&rdquo; fixed and obligatory fees, and damages at the certification stage. With several appeals and new cases underway, these rulings offer early guidance on how disclosure obligations may evolve in 2026 and beyond.

From First Price to Final Cost Drip Pricing Cases on the Rise

"Drip Pricing" Cases on the Rise

From First Price to Final Cost

Lukas VanDusen

Competition & Antitrust Lawyer | Foreign Investment

This article reviews the Competition Tribunal&rsquo;s first decision interpreting the new public interest standing provisions under the Competition Act. It establishes a three-part test for leave and emphasizes the need for a strong evidentiary record, including a viable litigation plan and demonstrated capacity to pursue complex claims. The decision underscores the Tribunal&rsquo;s gatekeeping role while providing guidance for future applicants and respondents.

Quasi Class Actions at the Competition Tribunal

Tribunal Provides First Guidance on Requirements for Public Interest Standing  

Quasi-Class Actions at the Competition Tribunal

Gannon Beaulne

Thomas Feore

This article explores how courts continue to apply and refine the &ldquo;some basis in fact&rdquo; test for certifying common issues in class actions. Recent decisions illustrate that while expert evidence is not always required, plaintiffs must provide sufficient admissible evidence to support both the existence of common issues and their class-wide resolution. The rulings reinforce certification as a meaningful screening tool and provide guidance on evidentiary expectations going forward.

TriWest Partnership With Northern Lite and Off Grid Trailers

From the Same Authors

Fintech Patents: Allowance Trends At The Canadian Patent Appeal Board

Fintech Patents: New Eligibility Guidance In Canada

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor IV

Latest Insights

Global Privacy Sweep Highlights Growing Expectations for Children's Privacy Online

Courts Continue Close Scrutiny of Privacy Class Actions

From First Price to Final Cost

Quasi-Class Actions at the Competition Tribunal

Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.