To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
As I mentioned in my previous post, quant and TOBAM funder Yves Choueifaty’s journey towards securing a Canadian patent for his process of constructing “anti-benchmark” securities portfolios has not been easy.
But first, a quick detour. Many companies have secured Canadian financial
system patents. For example:
TSX (Toronto Stock Exchange) Inc.: 8 patents in latency tolerance and failover management;
Accenture: hundreds of patents in systems that provide futures order throttling and order notification;
JPMorgan Chase: 6 patents in settlement systems and stored value cards;
NASDAQ: 14 patents in block chain systems and social media analysis;
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Good news for patent applicants with computer-implemented
inventions: Canada s Patent Appeal Board (PAB) recently ruled
that proposed claims in Yves Choueifaty s patent application
define patentable subject matter and should be allowed.
Choueifaty s patent application was the subject of a recent
Federal Court decision, which held
that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) had been
using an incorrect test for patentable subject matter.
Choueifaty s application was remanded back to the PAB for
further consideration, resulting in this new and favourable
decision. The PAB decision should provide patent applicants with
As we previously reported, the Federal Court in
Yves Choueifaty v Attorney General of
Canada, 2020 FC 837 (Choueifaty) granted the appeal from
the Commissioner of Patents (the Commissioner) decision that
Canadian Patent Application No. 2,635,393 (the 393 Application) was
not patentable subject-matter.
On January 11, 2021, the Patent Appeal Board (the Panel)
reconsidered the 393 Application and found that the Second Proposed
Claims, which had been considered by the Court in Choueifaty, were
patentable subject-matter that complied with section 2 of the
Patent Act. The Commissioner agreed with the Panel s
recommendation in
Choueifaty (Re), 2021 CACP 3. This
decision should provide insight to patent applicants regarding how
the Commissioner will apply the Canadian Intellectual Property