Textura Corporation vs. CIPO: Construction Prequalification Patent Refused
Canada’s patent office refused all 47 claims of Textura Corporation’s application CA2746656A1, covering construction project prequalification workflows. The examiner found every claim directed to abstract data manipulations lacking physical existence, barring patentability under both section 2 and subsection 27(8) of the Patent Act.
All 47 Claims Fall: Textura’s Prequalification Software Refused
Textura Corporation, a construction technology firm, pursued Canadian patent protection for its construction project prequalification platform under application CA2746656A1. The application contained 47 claims directed to workflows and data rules governing how contractors and subcontractors are assessed before being engaged on construction projects. The matter was examined by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), which issued a Preliminary Review letter raising subject-matter eligibility concerns before issuing a final refusal on May 23, 2024.
CIPO’s examiner concluded that although claims 1 to 47 appeared on their face to be directed to patentable categories of invention, the actual inventions resided in abstract data manipulations and rules with no physical existence. The examiner applied a two-pronged basis for refusal: failure to qualify as a patentable category under section 2 of the Patent Act, and prohibition as abstract theorems under subsection 27(8). The result is a final refusal of the entire application with no claims surviving.
The outcome is consistent with CIPO’s tightening approach to software and business-method applications following the Federal Court’s guidance in decisions such as Choueifaty. Textura had the opportunity to respond to the Preliminary Review letter before the final decision, suggesting amendments or arguments were either not submitted or were not persuasive. The public record does not disclose whether Textura intends to appeal to the Patent Appeal Board or the Federal Court, nor whether a divisional or continuation strategy is being pursued.
Filing to Unpatentable in 0 days
Case closed May 23, 2024 at CIPO examination stage
CIPO refusal: what the unpatentability finding means for Textura
Abstract subject matter bars both section 2 and s.27(8)
CIPO applied a two-track refusal. Under section 2 of the Patent Act, an invention must be an art, process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The examiner found Textura’s claims reduced to data manipulations and business rules that fit none of those categories. Independently, subsection 27(8) prohibits patents on mere scientific principles or abstract theorems — the examiner treated the abstract data operations as analogous, compounding the refusal.
Dual statutory bar appliedAll 47 claims refused — no Canadian patent protection granted
Textura loses Canadian patent protection for its prequalification platform in this application. The refusal does not affect any US or other international patents Textura may hold. Potential next steps include an appeal to the Patent Appeal Board, Federal Court judicial review, or filing a continuation with materially amended claims. The Preliminary Review process suggests Textura had prior notice but did not successfully overcome the objection.
No granted claimsConstructions software applicants face heightened abstract-matter scrutiny
This refusal signals that CIPO is applying rigorous subject-matter eligibility analysis to construction workflow and procurement software. Claims that automate prequalification rules or data assessments — even those framed as computer-implemented — risk characterisation as abstract if no physical transformation or technical contribution is identified. Applicants in adjacent spaces (bid management, project compliance, contractor vetting) should audit their Canadian claim strategies accordingly.
Software patentability riskCompetitors gain freedom to operate in Canadian prequalification software
With CA2746656A1 refused, competitors operating construction prequalification platforms in Canada face no patent barrier from this specific application. Companies offering similar contractor assessment, compliance, or procurement workflow tools can operate without licensing exposure under this filing. However, any granted Canadian or US counterparts held by Textura or its successor (Oracle, which acquired Textura) remain independently enforceable.
FTO opportunity for competitorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Textura Corporation | Company | Construction technology company — holder of CA2746656A1 (prequalification software)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Individual | N/A — ex parte CIPO examination proceeding; no defendant partySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Textura CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | CIPOSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The examiner’s language is unusually explicit in its dual-basis refusal. By first acknowledging claims ‘appear on their face’ to target patentable categories before piercing to the ‘actual invention,’ the decision applies the purposive construction methodology now standard at CIPO. The invocation of subsection 27(8) as an independent bar — treating abstract data operations as akin to scientific theorems — adds a second layer that any amendment strategy must independently overcome. Both grounds must be addressed for any appeal to succeed.
CA2746656A1 — Construction Project Prequalification Platform
CA2746656A1 is a Canadian patent application filed by Textura Corporation directed to a construction project prequalification system. The application’s 47 claims encompass the data workflows, assessment rules, and decision logic used to evaluate and qualify contractors and subcontractors before project engagement. CIPO’s examination characterised the core inventive concept as residing in abstract data manipulations — rules governing how qualification data is collected, assessed, and acted upon — rather than in any physical apparatus or tangible technical method.
Textura was a significant player in construction payment and procurement software before its acquisition by Oracle in 2016. CA2746656A1 represents an attempt to secure Canadian exclusivity over a core workflow in the preconstruction phase. The refusal leaves the Canadian market open in this specific claim space, but Oracle’s broader patent portfolio in construction technology means competitors cannot assume blanket freedom to operate. The application’s refused status also highlights the limits of porting US software patent claim strategies directly into Canadian prosecution.
Should you run an FTO against CA2746656A1?
Any company building, selling, or deploying construction prequalification or contractor vetting software in Canada should note that CA2746656A1 has been refused and does not create a patent barrier. However, product and IP teams should not stop there. Oracle holds a substantial portfolio of construction technology patents globally, and Canadian filings adjacent to prequalification workflows — covering related data exchange, compliance tracking, or payment management features — may still present infringement risk. A targeted FTO covering Oracle’s Canadian portfolio is advisable before product launch or market expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map Oracle’s full Canadian construction technology filing landscape, identify granted claims that overlap with prequalification or procurement workflows, and flag pending applications that could mature into enforceable rights. For R&D teams designing contractor assessment modules or bid management platforms, Eureka’s claim comparison tools help stress-test product features against surviving claim language before commercialisation — saving costly redesign later.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on CA2746656A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar CIPO Software Patentability Refusals in Construction & PropTech
Explore related CIPO examination decisions refusing software and business-method applications in construction technology, procurement, and project management on abstract subject matter grounds.
What this case signals for the construction software IP landscape
CIPO’s dual-track refusal of Textura’s claims is a calibration point for any software applicant targeting the Canadian construction technology sector.
Frame claims around technical effects, not data rules, for CIPO survival
CIPO’s reasoning hinged on the absence of physical existence or technical transformation. Applicants pursuing construction software patents in Canada should anchor claims to concrete technical improvements — processing efficiency, network communication protocols, or hardware interaction — rather than the business logic or data rules the system implements.
Oracle’s inherited portfolio may still carry Canadian risk for competitors
Oracle acquired Textura in 2016. While CA2746656A1 is refused, Oracle’s broader construction technology portfolio may include granted Canadian patents adjacent to prequalification workflows. Competitors should run FTO searches against Oracle’s Canadian filings — not just this refused application — before launching competing products.
Textura v Defendant — key questions answered
CIPO refused all 47 claims on the basis that the actual inventions — when subjected to purposive construction — were directed to abstract data manipulations and rules lacking physical existence. The examiner applied both section 2 (failure to qualify as a statutory category of invention) and subsection 27(8) (prohibition on abstract theorems) of the Patent Act as independent grounds for refusal.
Section 2 of the Patent Act defines patentable subject matter as an art, process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. A section 2 refusal means the claimed invention falls outside these categories entirely. Subsection 27(8) independently prohibits patents on mere scientific principles or abstract theorems. CIPO applied both in Textura’s case, meaning an appeal must overcome each ground separately.
Yes. A final CIPO refusal can be challenged before the Patent Appeal Board, an internal review body. If unsuccessful there, the applicant may seek judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada. The public record as of the May 23, 2024 refusal does not confirm whether an appeal has been filed, and no timeline is disclosed.
The refusal of this specific application means CA2746656A1 will not create enforceable patent rights in Canada. However, Oracle — which acquired Textura in 2016 — holds other Canadian and international patents covering adjacent construction technology workflows. Competitors should conduct a broader FTO analysis against Oracle’s full Canadian portfolio before assuming freedom to operate in the prequalification software space.
CIPO applies a purposive construction framework — derived in part from the Federal Court’s Choueifaty decision — to identify the actual invention and assess whether it falls within a statutory category. The USPTO applies the Alice/Mayo framework under 35 U.S.C. §101. Both impose abstract subject matter bars on software claims, but the analytical steps differ. Claims drafted to satisfy Alice eligibility in the US may still fail CIPO’s purposive construction test if the technical contribution is not clearly articulated.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.