Our Blog

Software and Fintech Patents Under CIPO’s March 2026 Practice Notice

May 27, 2026

Part 4 of a 4-part series on subject matter eligibility after CIPO’s March 2026 Practice Notice.

What CIPO Says

Computer-implemented Example 2 in the March 2026 Practice Notice addresses a method of selecting an investment portfolio based on return and risk criteria. The specification describes two components: algorithm A, which performs the portfolio optimization, and transform B, which reduces the number of arithmetic operations required to perform that optimization.

CIPO concludes that a claim directed to algorithm A is not patentable. The algorithm is treated as an abstract method implemented on a computer. A second claim that incorporates transform B is found to be patentable because the reduction in arithmetic operations is treated as an improvement to the computer’s functioning.

How the Analysis Operates in Practice

Eligibility turns on computational effect, not outcome

In the example, the distinction between the ineligible and eligible claims is based on how the invention affects the computer’s operation. The fact that algorithm A produces a useful financial result does not affect the analysis. The reduction in computational effort introduced by transform B is what supports eligibility.

In practice, this means that improvements in financial outcomes or business results do not, on their own, support patentability. The analysis focuses on whether the claimed invention changes how the computer performs the task.

Computational efficiency defines the primary path to eligibility

The Practice Notice identifies improvements such as reduced computation, lower memory usage, and faster processing as relevant to the physicality requirement. In the example, the reduction in arithmetic operations is sufficient to characterize the invention as improving the computer’s operation.

For software and fintech inventions, this places emphasis on identifying how the invention affects computational performance rather than on the logic or outcome of the method.

Specification detail affects CGK characterization

As reflected in the examples, elements may be treated as common general knowledge where the specification provides limited detail. This includes programming, simulation techniques, and other system components.

For software and fintech applications, where implementation details are sometimes described briefly, this creates a direct link between how the invention is described and how it is assessed in the eligibility analysis.

Prosecution Takeaways

Identify computational improvements as part of the invention

Where the invention includes any feature that reduces computational steps, improves processing time, lowers memory usage, or optimizes data handling, those features should be described as part of the technical contribution. These effects align with the types of improvements the Notice recognizes as supporting physicality.

Describe non-conventional techniques with sufficient detail

Where the invention relies on specific computational techniques that are not well known, the specification should describe those techniques with enough detail to support their characterization as part of the invention rather than as common general knowledge.

This includes explaining how the technique operates and how it differs from conventional approaches.

Structure claims to reflect the technical contribution

Independent claims should incorporate the features that provide the computational improvement where possible. Claims directed only to processing data or generating financial outputs without reciting how the computation is improved are more likely to be characterized as abstract.

Dependent claims can provide additional fallback positions, but the primary eligibility position should not depend on those additions.

Address examiner characterization directly in prosecution

Under the current framework, responses should engage directly with how the examiner has characterized the invention. Where elements are treated as common general knowledge, responses should refer to the specification’s technical disclosure to support a different characterization.

Where the invention includes measurable improvements in computational performance, those improvements should be identified explicitly in the response and tied to the operation of the system.

Under the March 2026 Practice Notice, eligibility for software and fintech inventions depends on whether the claimed invention can be characterized as improving the computer’s operation. Where the specification and claims identify measurable computational improvements, those improvements provide a basis for satisfying the physicality requirement.