Dusome Card Game Patent Application Refused by CIPO — Six Grounds
Barry and Wyatt Dusome’s application CA2701028A1, directed to a method for playing a card game, was refused by the Commissioner of Patents on 29 May 2024. The refusal rested on six distinct grounds spanning substantive patentability and multiple formal non-compliance issues under the Patent Act and Patent Rules.
Six-ground refusal of a card game method patent at the Canadian Patent Office
Barry Dusome and Wyatt Dusome applied to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) for a patent covering a method for playing a card game, assigned application number CA2701028A1. The application was examined and ultimately referred to the Patent Appeal Board, which recommended refusal on multiple substantive and formal grounds. The Commissioner of Patents concurred with that recommendation, issuing a final refusal on 29 May 2024.
The Commissioner refused the application under section 40 of the Patent Act, finding six independent grounds of non-compliance. Most fundamentally, the claims were held to be directed to unpatentable subject matter — failing both the section 2 definition of ‘invention’ and the subsection 27(8) prohibition on abstract methods. Claims 1 and 22–24 were also found indefinite under subsection 27(4). Additional defects included lack of support for Claim 1 (s. 60 Patent Rules), an impermissible multi-claim dependency in Claim 24 (s. 63(3) Patent Rules), and non-consecutive page numbering and description formatting errors (ss. 13(1)(c) and 50(1) Patent Rules).
The accumulation of six distinct grounds — both substantive and procedural — suggests the application faced significant challenges throughout prosecution that were not resolved before the Board stage. The public record does not disclose what, if any, amendments were attempted during examination. Under section 41 of the Patent Act, the applicants retain the right to appeal to the Federal Court of Canada within six months of the decision, though the breadth and nature of the grounds, particularly unpatentable subject matter, may present a high bar on appeal.
Filing to Unpatentable in 0 days
Closed 29 May 2024 — exact filing date not available in public record
Refused on six grounds: what the CIPO decision means for the applicants
Refusal under s. 40 Patent Act: what it means
A refusal under section 40 of the Patent Act is the Commissioner’s final administrative determination that a patent cannot be granted on the application as filed. It follows a Patent Appeal Board recommendation and is binding unless successfully appealed to the Federal Court under s. 41. It is not a finding of invalidity of any granted patent — it simply ends the prosecution without a grant.
Final administrative refusalCard game methods face a high bar under Canadian patent law
The core substantive ground — failure under s. 2 and s. 27(8) of the Patent Act — reflects the Canadian legal position that abstract rules for games do not constitute patentable ‘inventions’. This is consistent with CIPO’s approach following the ‘purposive construction’ framework and guidance in the Manual of Patent Office Practice. Game method claims that lack a physical or technological component have historically struggled to meet the s. 2 definition.
Subject matter eligibilityMultiple procedural failures compounded the substantive problems
Beyond subject matter, the application attracted four separate formal objections: indefiniteness of claims (s. 27(4)), lack of written description support for Claim 1 (s. 60 Patent Rules), impermissible multi-claim dependency in Claim 24 (s. 63(3) Patent Rules), and page numbering non-compliance (ss. 13(1)(c) and 50(1) Patent Rules). Each is independently curable in principle, but taken together they suggest the application required substantial revision that was not undertaken.
Procedural non-complianceFederal Court appeal remains open for six months
Section 41 of the Patent Act grants the applicants six months from the Commissioner’s decision to appeal to the Federal Court of Canada. Any appeal would likely focus on the unpatentable subject matter ground, as this is the most contested area of Canadian patent law following decisions such as Amazon.com (FCA 2011). Overturning purely formal grounds on appeal is less common where the substantive ground is also upheld.
S. 41 Federal Court appealFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Barry Dusome & Wyatt Dusome | Individual | Individual applicants — holders of CA2701028A1 (card game method)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Individual | No defendant — ex parte CIPO examination and appeal board proceedingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | CIPOSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Commissioner’s decision adopts the Patent Appeal Board’s recommendation in full, identifying six distinct grounds of refusal. The leading ground — unpatentable subject matter under s. 2 and s. 27(8) — is the most legally significant, reflecting settled CIPO and Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence that abstract game rules do not constitute a patentable ‘invention’. The additional formal grounds (indefiniteness, lack of support, multi-claim dependency, and page numbering) independently justify refusal but also suggest the application may not have been comprehensively revised before reaching the Board. The s. 41 appeal right preserves a pathway to Federal Court, though the multi-ground basis of refusal raises the burden on the applicants.
CA2701028A1 — Method for playing a card game
CA2701028A1 is a Canadian patent application filed by Barry Dusome and Wyatt Dusome directed to a method for playing a card game. The application was ultimately refused on the ground that its claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter — the claimed method did not satisfy the definition of ‘invention’ under section 2 of the Patent Act, and appeared to fall within the prohibition in subsection 27(8) against patents for abstract ideas or rules of a game.
From a strategic perspective, the application illustrates the difficulty of securing Canadian patent protection for game mechanics absent a clear technological component. The gaming and entertainment sectors — including digital card games and tabletop game publishers — should note that CIPO’s subject matter framework is more restrictive than USPTO practice in this area. Competitors and FTO analysts need not treat CA2701028A1 as creating enforceable rights, as the application was refused and no patent was granted.
Should you run an FTO against CA2701028A1?
Because CA2701028A1 was refused and no patent was granted, it does not create an enforceable patent right. Developers, publishers, and distributors of card games — whether physical or digital — do not face a direct infringement risk from this specific application. However, R&D and product teams active in the card game or broader tabletop/digital gaming space should still map the Canadian and international patent landscape for related game method applications that may have proceeded to grant.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can identify granted patents in the card game and game method category across Canadian, US, and international registers, flag prosecution histories of related applications, and surface any divisional or continuation applications that may have been filed alongside CA2701028A1. This is particularly relevant where a game mechanic has commercial value and competitors may hold overlapping granted rights.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on CA2701028A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar CIPO refusals: card game and game method patent applications
Cases involving CIPO refusals of game method and card game patent applications on subject matter eligibility grounds under Canadian Patent Act s. 2.
What this refusal signals for game method patents in Canada
The CIPO refusal of CA2701028A1 highlights the persistent subject matter eligibility barrier facing method-of-playing claims under Canadian patent law.
Abstract game rules remain unpatentable in Canada without a technical element
CIPO’s refusal confirms that method-of-playing-a-game claims must demonstrate a physical or technological dimension to satisfy s. 2 of the Patent Act. Applicants in the gaming, card game, and entertainment sectors should assess whether their claims are anchored to a patentable art or process before filing.
Procedural defects can be remedied — but only during prosecution, not on appeal
Four of the six grounds were formal in nature and theoretically curable through amendment. This case suggests that applicants who receive final action letters should engage experienced Canadian patent agents promptly, as failure to address formal defects before the Board stage significantly narrows options.
Dusome v Defendant — key questions answered
The Commissioner of Patents refused CA2701028A1 on six grounds: (1) unpatentable subject matter under s. 2 and s. 27(8) of the Patent Act; (2) indefiniteness of claims 1 and 22–24; (3) lack of support for Claim 1; (4) impermissible multi-claim dependency in Claim 24; and (5)–(6) page numbering and description formatting non-compliance under the Patent Rules.
Yes. Section 41 of the Patent Act grants applicants six months from the Commissioner’s decision to appeal to the Federal Court of Canada. The appeal would likely focus on the unpatentable subject matter ground, which is the most substantive finding and the one most open to legal argument. Formal grounds are harder to overturn on appeal once prosecution has closed.
The refusal means no patent protection was granted for the claimed method, so no exclusive rights arise from this application. This does not affect any other IP rights the applicants may hold (e.g., copyright in rules text). However, it also does not affirmatively dedicate the method to the public domain in a legal sense — it simply means no patent monopoly was created.
Under section 2 of the Patent Act, a patentable ‘invention’ must be an art, process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter — or an improvement thereof. Abstract rules for games, without a physical or technological implementation, have consistently been found to fall outside this definition by CIPO and the Federal Court. Subsection 27(8) additionally prohibits granting patents for mere scientific principles or abstract theorems, which CIPO may apply to purely mental or abstract game rules.
Subsection 63(3) of the Canadian Patent Rules requires that a dependent claim refer back to only one preceding claim. Claim 24 was found to depend on more than one claim, which is expressly prohibited under Canadian practice — unlike US practice where multiple dependent claims are permitted in limited circumstances. This is a formal defect that must be corrected by amendment during prosecution and cannot be remedied on appeal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.