In Dusome, the Federal Court had set aside CIPO’s refusal of a patent application for a method of playing poker with physical cards and for a computerized implementation of the game and remitted the application to CIPO for redetermination. CIPO subsequently released a new Practice Notice in response to the decision, eliminating the “actual invention” analytical step, removing the prohibition on patenting games, and reaffirming the physicality requirement for computer-implemented inventions.

After applying the new patentable subject matter framework, CIPO has preliminarily determined that the claims in the application remain directed to non-patentable subject matter. CIPO found that the method claims were directed to the rules of a poker game implemented using standard playing cards, which were well-known tools and did not contribute the required physicality. CIPO also found that the computerized implementation claims were directed to an algorithm executed on generic computer components operating in a well-known manner, with no disclosed improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. As a result, CIPO concluded that neither the method claims nor the computerized implementation claims satisfied the physicality requirement. The claims were therefore still found to be directed to non-patentable subject matter. As this was a preliminary determination, the Applicant still has the opportunity to provide further submissions to CIPO.

The Dusome redetermination is a reminder that CIPO’s doctrinal refinements do not always translate into different results in practice. For inventors in the gaming, software, and AI spaces, patentability in Canada may still require either additional physical elements or a demonstrable improvement in computer functionality.

Access the Dusome redetermination decision here and CIPO’s new Practice Notice here.

Howard Hu – Before entering law school, Howard built a successful career in the technology industry, with experience at Microsoft, Nokia Canada, and technology companies in China. His engineering practice included designing IP telephony systems, embedded devices, consumer electronics, intelligent search platforms, and cloud-based services.

Jeevan Thiruchittampalam – Before entering law school, Jeevan studied Computer and Electrical Engineering with a particular interest in A.I. and Data Analytics. He has experience working in Software Development and in Real Estate Management.

Ronald Rout – Before entering law school, Ronald completed a degree in engineering physics at Queen’s University. During his undergrad, he was a member of the Queen’s Rocket Engineering Team. He also completed a 16-month internship, where he worked on research and development for radar systems.  After graduating, Ronald worked for several years at a large engineering consulting firm, where he was part of the control and automation team. In this role, he worked on projects in the mining, energy and infrastructure sectors

We look forward to our summer students’ contributions to the firm this summer.

AccelerateIP’s Stream 2-1: IP Mentorship provides startups with up to four hours of dedicated one-on-one mentorship focused on IP strategy from a business perspective. The program is designed for companies seeking to integrate IP into their business plans, assess their existing IP approach, or prepare to work with legal counsel. Mentors provide strategic guidance, although they do not provide legal advice. Startups looking to enter into the AccelerateIP pipeline and learn about developing their IP can apply starting June 1^st, 2026.

Stream 2-2: IP Strategy provides up to $25,000 toward eligible legal costs related to IP strategy development, subject to a required co-investment contribution of 25% by the startup. Eligible work can include prior art and patentability searches, freedom-to-operate analyses, IP audits, trademark strategy and clearance searches, commercialization strategy support, and related contractual work. Applications are open until June 15^th, 2026. Applicants must have either completed a previous tier of AccelerateIP or have an in-house IP expert.

Stream 3: IP Implementation provides up to $60,000 toward eligible legal costs associated with implementing an IP strategy. Covered activities may include filing and prosecuting patent, trademark, industrial design, and copyright applications, as well as certain commercialization-related legal work. Applications are open until June 15^th, 2026. Applicants must have either completed a previous tier of AccelerateIP or have an in-house IP expert and an existing IP strategy.

For startups considering patents, trademarks, or otherwise developing their IP, AccelerateIP may present a valuable opportunity to reduce legal costs while strengthening long-term commercialization and growth strategies. Oyen Wiggs’ lawyers are registered legal services providers who can play a key role in your company’s Stream 2-2 and Stream 3 of the AccelerateIP programming focused on IP strategy and implementation.

Click here to apply for AccelerateIP funding or here.

Further information on IP PRIME is available here, and tickets are available here.

In the underlying decision, the Registrar of Trademarks had expunged the registration for the trademark TDLINX under section 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) due to the registrant’s failure to submit evidence of use. On appeal, the appellate (who was the trademark registrant) sought leave under subsection 56(5) of the Act to introduce evidence of use, asserting that the evidence was not initially filed due to inadvertence on the part of one of the registrant’s employees.

In applying the approach set out in Products Unlimited, the Court ultimately granted leave to introduce the evidence and partially reinstated the trademark registration. The Court, referencing Products Unlimited, noted that granting leave under subsection 56(5) “’is ultimately directed at the interests of justice and considers all relevant factors applicable in the circumstances’, including: (a) the relevance, credibility, and admissibility of the evidence; (b) the materiality of the evidence; (c) the circumstances surrounding the delay in filing the evidence; and (d) whether granting leave would cause prejudice to the opposing party”.

The Court considered that the proposed evidence was relevant, credible and material. The Court further found that there was no prejudice to the respondent as the respondent took no position on the appeal, and that the circumstances surrounding the delay was accorded less weight given the nature of the proposed evidence and the non-participation of the respondent.

A copy of the decision can be found here.

The patent claims a process for treating vegetables, including potatoes, using a “high electric field” to reduce resistance to cutting without preheating or cooking them. The trial judge had found that J.R. Simplot’s pulsed electric field systems, which operate at 1,000 volts per centimetre or more, did not infringe the claims. The trial judge construed the term “high electric field” in the claims as referring to fields in the range of 2 to 200 V/cm. In the alternative, the trial judge held that if the claims were construed to cover fields so far beyond this range as to cover the electric fields used by J.R. Simplot, the claims would be invalid for both overbreadth and lack of utility.

On appeal, McCain Foods challenged the trial judge’s interpretation of the term “high electric field,” arguing that it led to reviewable errors in law related to the conclusions on infringement and validity.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that, “because the Federal Court’s claim construction was based on its appreciation of the expert evidence”, the trial judge’s construction attracted deference, and it was not satisfied that a palpable and overriding error had been made. The Court of Appeal thus upheld the finding that a person skilled in the art would understand the claims to include such a numerical limit to the term “high electric field.” Having found no infringement, the Court of Appeal declined to address issues of validity.

The full decision can be found here.

On expedited examination, CIPO is asking whether its four existing accelerated examination programs meet client needs and is inviting comments on two potential new programs as well as ideas for future programs. The areas of focus include stakeholder needs for faster examination, the benefits and challenges of the proposed programs, the perceived value and priority of each offering, and any other features that would better support applicants.

On the grace period, CIPO is seeking input on the general awareness of, and past experiences with, the policies and risks surrounding pre-filing disclosures. CIPO has stated that the responses will inform its participation in international discussions on grace period harmonization.

Stakeholders may participate in the public consultation via two surveys (one for each topic). To access the surveys, please visit here.

This marks a significant improvement. As reported in our previous IP news posts, examination delays at CIPO were, until recently, a significant concern, with delays stretching multiple years.

For trademark applicants, shorter examination timelines have practical implications. Businesses can now receive feedback on registrability issues and identify potential conflicts with third-party marks sooner.

If you have questions about trademark filing strategy or timing, feel free to reach out to a member of our team.

Hosted by Funded in Vancouver, Beaver’s Den will take place on Monday, April 27, 2026, at Science World and will serve as the kickoff event for Vancouver Startup Week 2026.

The event brings together founders, investors, and members of Vancouver’s business and startup community for an evening focused on innovation, opportunity, and growth. According to the organizers, 89 companies applied, and the competition has already exceeded its initial $100,000 minimum cheque size goal, with momentum continuing toward the $200,000 stretch goal.

We are proud to support an event that helps spotlight emerging companies and strengthens Vancouver’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. As a firm, we value opportunities to support ambitious founders, innovative enterprises, and the wider business community they help shape.

Congratulations to the shortlisted companies advancing in the competition. We look forward to attending Beaver’s Den and celebrating the energy, talent, and investment momentum driving Vancouver’s startup scene.

Learn more or get tickets here:  https://luma.com/yyhwd6tb

The practice notice states that the references in the Manual of Patent Office Practice (“MOPOP”) to the “contribution” of a claim, to a “technological solution to a technological problem”, and to evaluating essentiality of elements based on a “problem and solution” during purposive construction in Chapters 12, 17, 18, 22 and 23 no longer apply.

The removal of the “problem and solution” language from the MOPOP is a welcome step in the right direction as courts have repeatedly found that CIPO mischaracterizes claim construction when following their “problem-solution” approach.

CIPO has also updated their guidance with respect to computer-implemented inventions, medical diagnostic methods and medical uses and games.

With respect to games, CIPO’s prohibition against methods of playing games as being unpatentable subject matter has been lifted.

With respect to medical diagnostic methods, CIPO has set out guidelines with respect to what sort of diagnostic methods CIPO will consider patentable:

“[I]f the subject-matter of a diagnostic method claim as construed defines elements that include physical steps, e.g., for measuring, identifying, detecting, assaying, etc. the presence or quantity of an analyte(s) in a sample, then the claim would be considered patentable subject-matter.”

With respect to “medical uses”, CIPO states that the key consideration is “whether professional skill and judgment would be required in using the invention”. Where no skill and judgment is required, the medical use may be patentable. CIPO notes that fixed dose regimens are an indication that no skill or judgment is required and therefore such claims may be patentable.

We note that the Supreme Court of Canada is currently considering the issue of the patentability of methods of medical treatment, and changes to this area of law may occur as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.