Post-transaction Reselection Of A Payment Method: Non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method and system for reversing a payment method selection after a transaction has already been processed using a consolidated payment device associated with multiple payment methods. The key feature at issue was the post-transaction reselection of a payment method, including finalizing a transaction with a first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund process for that first payment method while authorizing the same transaction with a second payment method. The Board of Appeal considered this feature to be a financial, i.e., non-technical matter that does not contribute to inventive step.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1327/22 (Selecting a payment method/CURVE UK) of 19 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Changing the payment method after a transaction has been finalized by refunding the first payment method and charging a second one is a financial arrangement, not a technical contribution. Defining such a non-technical requirement without specifying any technical implementation means beyond a standard computer system is insufficient to establish inventive step.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention relates to changing the payment method using a consolidated payment device (CPD), such as a card or mobile phone, which allows payment with multiple payment methods. A consolidated payment device is associated with a plurality of payment methods and enables using any of them for transactions at a point of sale or online. In practice, a holder of such a device may need to reverse their payment method selection after a transaction has already been processed, for example due to a mistake or due to latency inherent to the payment method selection process of consolidated payment devices. The invention addresses this by allowing the holder to effectively "go back in time." A remote server receives a transaction request from the CPD indicating a first payment method. Upon authorization, including verification of sufficient funds, the transaction is finalized using the first payment method. If the holder later decides to use a different payment method, the server receives a reselection request indicating a second payment method. The server then authorizes the transaction with the second payment method and initiates a cancel and refund process for the first payment method. The entire process is designed to be transparent to the merchant or payment recipient, meaning neither the merchant nor the recipient needs to take any action or is even aware that a payment method change has occurred.

• Main request - Claim 1

  A computer-implemented method for reselecting a payment method from a plurality of payment methods associated with a consolidated payment device where a transaction has been finalized, the method comprising: obtaining, at a remote server, a transaction request, responsive to initiation by a holder of the consolidated payment device, wherein the transaction request indicates a first payment method of said plurality of payment methods; authorizing and finalizing the transaction request, following a process that comprises verifying sufficient funds on the first payment method; receiving, at said remote server, a reselection request indicating a second payment method which is different than the first payment method; authorizing the transaction request with the second payment method; and initiating a cancel and refund process for the transaction with the first payment method, wherein the obtaining, the authorizing, the initiating and the receiving are executed by a computer processor.

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division's position

The examining division refused the application in a "decision according to the state of the file," referring to its communication dated 15 November 2021. In that communication, objections were raised under Articles 123(2), 54, and 56 EPC. Regarding Article 123(2) EPC, the examining division objected to the use of the term "reselection request" in the second "authorizing" feature, where the original application used "transaction request." Regarding novelty (Article 54 EPC), the examining division considered claim 1 to lack novelty over D1 (US 2011/191149), which disclosed a system allowing a customer to change the payment method after a transaction at the POS. Regarding inventive step (Article 56 EPC), the examining division took the view that first finalizing the transaction using the first payment method and subsequently refunding the paid amount was a financial, i.e., non-technical matter which did not contribute to inventive step under the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). The examining division further noted that the claim did not specify any technical implementation means going beyond the use of a computer.

The Appellant's arguments

The appellant argued that claim 1 included several technical features necessary for carrying out the underlying business activity. In particular, the appellant contended that the data carrier had to be configured to:

1. Receive, process and authorize a transaction request in respect of a first payment method.
2. Finalize and debit payment from an authorized first payment method.
3. Receive and process a reselection request denoting a second payment method for the transaction amount.
4. Check and authorize the reselection transaction using a second payment method.
5. Cancel and refund/reimburse the original transaction amount to the first (original) payment method.

The appellant argued that the invention allowed the user of a consolidated payment device to "go back in time" and vary the payment method used for a particular registered transaction to a different payment method, and to have the transaction amount refunded to the original payment method. In the appellant's view, this constituted a technical effect that contributed to inventive step.

The Board's analysis

Main request

1. The Board first addressed the Article 123(2) EPC objection. The amendment replacing "reselection request" with "transaction request" in the second "authorizing" feature overcame the examining division's objection. The Board found no added matter.
2. On novelty, the Board disagreed with the examining division and agreed with the appellant that D1 did not disclose finalizing the transaction request for the first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund process for that payment method. In D1, the payment to the retailer is provided by the financial institution without debiting the customer's account until the time has elapsed for the customer to choose a payment method. This is not the same as the cancel and refund in claim 1.
3. On inventive step, however, the Board shared the examining division's view. First finalizing the transaction using the first payment method and subsequently refunding the paid amount is a financial, i.e., non-technical matter which does not contribute to inventive step under the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). This non-technical rule is given as part of the framework of the technical problem as a requirement to implement.
4. The Board found that the means for sending, receiving, and processing transaction requests, including the reselection request, were already disclosed in D1. D1 indeed allows the user to "go back in time" by changing the payment method after the transaction has taken place at the POS. The difference over D1 is merely in how this is solved financially: instead of giving the customer a credit until the final payment method is indicated (as in D1), the claimed invention debits the customer's account and later refunds the amount.
5. The Board acknowledged that the implementation might require technical modifications to the payment system, but these were not specified in the claim. The mere definition of means that achieve this was considered self-evident.

First auxiliary request

1. The first auxiliary request added explicit references to deducting funds corresponding to the transaction amount from both the first and second payment method, and that the reselection request is associated with the transaction request.
2. The examining division had objected under Article 123(2) EPC because the originally filed application did not explicitly disclose "deducting funds." The Board disagreed and found that deducting funds is implicit in the disclosure, since a refund on the first payment method implies that the amount was first charged, and paying via the second method involves charging it.
3. However, the Board held that the first auxiliary request did not add any technical features contributing to inventive step. The appellant did not argue any further technical effects or advantages. The same reasoning as for the main request applied, and claim 1 of the first auxiliary request also lacked inventive step.

Conclusion

The Board dismissed the appeal. While the Board found that the claims met the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC and were novel over the cited prior art D1 (US 2011/191149), the distinguishing feature over D1, namely finalizing a transaction with a first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund to switch to a second payment method, was considered a purely financial arrangement. Under the COMVIK approach, this non-technical feature could not contribute to inventive step. Since the claims did not specify any technical implementation details beyond the use of a standard computer system, it would have been obvious for the skilled person to implement this financial requirement on the computer system known from D1. The application was therefore refused for lack of inventive step under Article 56 EPC for both the main request and the first auxiliary request.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1327/22 (Selecting a payment method/CURVE UK) of 19 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.