• About us
    Who We AreStaff DirectoryBoard of DirectorsHall of FameMember AwardsStrategic Plan / Annual ReportsCommittees/CommunitiesCode of EthicsEducational FoundationEquity, Diversity & Inclusion
  • Advocacy
    IP IncentivesIPIC SubmissionsIPIC Intervention Policy
  • What is IP?
     IP BasicsOwn it. CampaignWhy Use a ProfessionalHow to Become an AgentIndigenous Traditional Knowledge
  • Education
    Certification ProgramsCourses & EventsMentorship Program
  • Resources
    COVID-19 UpdatesNewsCIPRFind an IP ProfessionalIPIC Job Bank2019 Compensation StudyMedia KitIP Assist
  • Membership
    Your profession. Our purpose.Join NowMember BenefitsMember CategoriesMember Referral ProgramInsurance Program: IP Agent Insurance
  • 0
  • FR
David Ruston
Marks & Clerk Canada | Marks & Clerk Law LLP
,
Jonathan Pollack
Dickinson Wright LLP
Topics
Share

CIPO's Patentable Subject-Matter Guidance - Same Code, Different Syntax

Published on November 4, 2020

The Backstory

On August 21, 2020, the Federal Court of Canada (FCC) handed down its ruling in the appeal of Yves Choueifaty against the rejection of Canadian Patent Application No. 2,635,393 for a “Method and Systems for Provision of Anti-Benchmark Portfolio” by the Commissioner of Patents.  Mr. Choueifaty was the named inventor of a computer implementation of a new method of selecting and weighing investment portfolio assets that minimize risk without impacting returns. During examination, he amended the claims twice to address the Examiner’s and Patent Appeal Board’s finding that the subject matter of the claims fell outside the definition of “invention” in the Patent Act. 

The FCC concluded that the Commissioner, notwithstanding acknowledging that patent claims are to be construed purposively, does not intend or direct Examiners to follow the test as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Free World Trust and Whirlpool. Instead, citing to a pre-Amazon decision from 2008, the Office was directing examiners to use the “problem-solution” approach.  The FCC held that decision was no longer good law.  

Response from CIPO

The Commissioner did not appeal the Choueifaty decision and, on November 3, 2020 issued guidance on Patentable Subject-Matter under the Patent Act.  Overall, the guidance is disappointing as it appears that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has simply repackaged its former approach under new terminology.  

Under the former approach, CIPO used the problem-solution approach to dismiss elements of a claim as “non-essential”.  The stripped claim was then rejected under section 2 of the Patent Act as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.  

Under the guidance, Examiners are instructed that “For each claim, the identification of the actual invention must be grounded in a purposive construction of the claim and cannot be determined solely on the basis of a literal reading of the claim.”  While this seems promising, the guidance continues to state that “An element may thus be an essential element of the claim because the applicant intended it to be essential even though it has no material effect on the working of the invention.  Such an element would not form part of the actual invention because the fact that it has no material effect on the working of the invention means it does not cooperate with other elements of the claimed invention.” Emphasis added.  

The guidance further goes on to specify that, for computer implemented inventions, “if the computer merely processes the algorithm in a well-known manner and the processing of the algorithm on the computer does not solve any problem in the functioning of the computer, the computer and the algorithm do not form part of a single actual invention that solves a problem related to the manual or productive arts.”  Rather, in such circumstances the claim should be rejected under subsection 27(8) of the Patent Act as being directed to a “mere scientific principle or abstract theorem.” 

The Takeaway

In the upcoming months it will be interesting to see how the guidance is implemented by CIPO.  In particular, it will be interesting to see how CIPO handles the application that was the subject of the Choueifaty decision, as the Applicant has already expressed a willingness to take the matter to the courts. 

There is some hope in the guidance, since the stated threshold for patent eligibility in computer-implemented inventions is that the algorithm “solve any problem in the functioning of the computer.”  This requirement appears to be broader than the former threshold which required that the algorithm provide an “inventive solution to a technological problem in respect of the operation of the computer.”  

However, it appears likely that CIPO will continue to dismiss computers and other elements of the claims that are used in a well-known manner, by arguing that those elements are not part of the "actual invention" regardless of whether those elements are "essential elements" of the claims.

*This article was originally published on Marks & Clerk's website: https://www.marks-clerk.com/Home/Knowledge-News/Articles/CIPO%E2%80%99S-PATENTABLE-SUBJECT-MATTER-GUIDANCE-Same-Cod.aspx#.X6RN9GhKjn1

*Article disponible en anglais seulement.

Related Articles

May 12, 2023

Tips and Tricks for Effective Virtual Advocacy

Ryan Wong
As a junior IP litigator, I find myself having a lot of questions about what it means to be an effective advocate in these “modern” times. I am among the first cohort of students to cut my teeth as a 2L summer and articling student wholly during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, my legal experience has been one of constant adjustments. I’ve witnessed our profession’s incredible ability to adapt and react to unprecedented times.
TopicsEmerging Leaders Committee
May 5, 2023

Practice Tips for Emerging IP Practitioners Looking to Work In-House

Anastassia Trifonova
Today's emerging IP practitioners have a wide range of career options. While IP work was traditionally handled exclusively by law firms, more and more businesses are now seeking IP specialists to complement their in-house legal teams. As organizations strive to optimize their internal legal resources, IP lawyers and agents alike can bring valuable expertise to the table. This article aims to provides helpful tips for IP professionals who are looking to succeed in-house.
TopicsEmerging Leaders Committee
April 24, 2023

Join IPIC & its Educational Foundation in recognizing World IP Day 2023 on April 26th

Kevin Shipley, Nicole Mantini
The theme of this year’s World IP Day is an important reminder that many segments of Canadian society do not have equal access to the necessary resources and tools to thrive in our profession. IPIC has been focused on raising awareness and working to make meaningful, positive change in respect of these issues. Since 2019, IPIC's Educational Foundation’s [Patent & Trademark Institute Educational Foundation (PTIEF)] mandate has been to encourage education and scholarship in the IP field with a focus on promoting diversity and inclusion among IP professionals and removing barriers to access for members of under-represented groups interested in pursuing educational opportunities in the IP field.
TopicsFoundation Committee EDI Educational Foundation

MISSION

Our mission is to enhance our members’ expertise as trusted intellectual property advisors, and to shape a policy and business environment that encourages the development, use, and value of intellectual property.


VISION

Our vision is for IPIC to be the leading authority on intellectual property in Canada, and the voice of intellectual property professionals.

LATEST TWEETS

Twitter feed is currently not available

CONTACT US

360 Albert Street, Suite 550
Ottawa, ON K1R 7X7

T 613-234-0516
E admin@ipic.ca

LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The IPIC office is located in Ottawa, on the traditional, unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.

©2021 Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, Ottawa, ON
Designed by Ottawa Web Design driven by Member Management Software