The strongest quantum companies may not necessarily own the most patents. They will own - or credibly influence - the few technical control points that the market cannot easily route around. In a field where architectures, standards and winning business models remain unsettled, defensibility comes from a deliberately layered portfolio: patents where disclosure buys exclusion; trade secrets where secrecy compounds advantage; and contracts, data rights, copyright and know-how controls that prevent value leaking between the cracks. The task is not to protect everything but to protect what the future ecosystem is likely to need to pass through.
The market will reward control, not accumulation
Quantum innovation is not one market but a stack of interdependent bets: hardware architectures, error correction, control systems, enabling materials, photonics, networking, software tools and algorithms. It remains uncertain which layers will capture the greatest share of value, or which architectures will become dominant. That uncertainty is not a reason to file indiscriminately. It is a reason to be more strategic.
6 moves that create defensible advantage
Start where the stack is hardest to escape
Some inventions improve a product. Others become infrastructure. The latter deserve disproportionate attention because they can sit beneath several products, customers and generations of technology. The point is not to predict which technology will prevail, but to identify assets with reach beyond a single product or technical iteration.
Hunt at the seams
The most valuable IP is often found not inside a single discipline, but where two difficult systems must work together. These seams are technically demanding, commercially sticky and frequently overlooked by teams organised in silos.
Match the protection tool to the asset
A patent-only strategy is not an IP strategy; it is a filing programme. Quantum businesses create value through inventions, software, tacit know-how and operating discipline. Each asset should be protected by the mechanism that best preserves its commercial advantage.
Asset typeTypical quantum examples
Patent protection is more attractive where third-party use can be detected, reverse engineering is feasible, the commercial life justifies disclosure and cost, or publication supports licensing and standards influence. Secrecy may be more valuable where use is difficult to detect, the process can remain internal, the advantage may outlast a patent lifecycle, or disclosure would teach competitors how to reproduce it.
File to the commercial roadmap - not the publication calendar
Patents that are relatively straightforward to obtain are not necessarily the patents a business will be grateful to own. Scientific novelty matters but filing decisions should also be tested against commercial consequences. Broad early filing can still be rational where disclosure is imminent, technical direction remains fluid or later claim development is available. But urgency should not displace discipline: an early filing should preserve strategically valuable options.
Treat freedom to operate as a design input
FTO is too often treated as a legal clearance exercise performed just before launch. By then, expensive choices may have been made. Patentability asks whether the company may obtain rights over an invention. Freedom to operate asks whether commercialisation may infringe third-party rights. Strategic control asks whether the resulting portfolio gives the company meaningful commercial leverage. These questions are related, but they are not interchangeable.
Own selectively; negotiate from strength everywhere else
For each critical capability decide whether to own, influence, license, access through a partner, or acquire it. Few quantum companies will need - or be able - to own every important layer of the stack. Nor should they try.
A practical control-point framework
Not every important capability must sit on the balance sheet, but every important dependency needs a conscious strategy.
When it may be appropriate
core differentiation or dependency
Portfolio implication
deep patent coverage and trade-secret controls
When it may be appropriate
standards or ecosystem interfaces
Portfolio implication
strategic filings, standards participation and publication discipline
When it may be appropriate
third-party technology is efficient to access
Portfolio implication
FTO review, durable licence scope and improvement rights
When it may be appropriate
complementary capability is required
Portfolio implication
clear background/foreground IP and exit provisions
When it may be appropriate
capability is strategically necessary but hard to build
Portfolio implication
diligence on title, validity, encumbrances and integration
How good portfolios quietly become weak ones
Portfolio weakness rarely announces itself. It accumulates through reasonable-looking decisions made in isolation: a filing rushed before publication, a collaboration signed without clean IP boundaries, or a technically elegant claim with no strategic role. Warning signs include:
filing broadly before the technology and commercial proposition have stabilised
protecting isolated inventions without a coherent portfolio architecture
failing to define background IP, foreground IP and improvement ownership in collaborations
measuring success by patent count
The questions serious capital will ask
Investors are not counting certificates on the wall. They are testing whether the IP estate survives contact with commercial reality. Expect scrutiny of:
executed assignments; founder, employee and consultant terms; university and prior-employer releases; inventor records; and clear schedule of encumbrances.
a portfolio map linking patent families, trade secrets, data and know-how to products, control points, jurisdictions, competitors and the commercial roadmap.
search and monitoring records, material third-party rights, design-around analysis, licence scope, standards exposure and contingency plans for critical suppliers.
evidence that rights support customer adoption, licensing, partnerships, enforcement and exit value.
The question that should organise the portfolio
Which control points in the future quantum value chain must we own, where must we shape the rules, and where can we rely on access without surrendering leverage?
That question changes the conversation. It moves IP from the end of the innovation process to the centre of corporate strategy - and replaces a collection of rights with a portfolio capable of shaping the market.
The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub
System architecture in quantum computing – history repeating itself?
December 24, 2025
This article explores the evolution of system architecture in quantum computing, drawing parallels with the early days of classical computing. It discusses the current challenges in quantum hardware, the emergence of quantum instruction set architectures (ISAs), and the potential for a RISC vs. CISC debate similar to that in classical computing. The piece highlights opportunities for innovation and intellectual property, suggesting that the choices made now could shape the future landscape of quantum technologies and licensing.
Quantum Sensors: What are they and why do they matter to healthcare?
May 19, 2025
The UN says we are in a year of quantum, celebrating 100 years since the development of quantum mechanics. While quantum computing is often the main talking point, the other areas of quantum tech,...
Quantum IP Strategy: Own control Points, Not Patent Counts
14 October 2026
In quantum, the strongest portfolios will not be the biggest. Stuart Malcolm sets out six moves for owning the control points the market cannot route around, and the questions investors will ask.
Targeted, Not Transformative: The UKIPO’s Considered Course on SEPs
13 October 2026
Andrew Sharples analyses the UKIPO's response to its SEP consultation, exploring proposed changes to FRAND dispute resolution, SEP transparency and licensing guidance, and what they mean for SEP holders and implementers.
Chinese companies are becoming increasingly active in European patent litigation, both as defendants and as patent owners enforcing their own rights. This article examines the growing role of Europe and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in global patent disputes, highlighting key cases involving Chinese businesses and the strategic opportunities and risks that come with operating in European markets. It is the first in a series exploring the practical implications of European patent enforcement for Chinese companies.
How to mitigate prior art traps for follow-on pharma patents
27 August 2026
Follow-on patents are increasingly important for pharmaceutical innovators. Learn how new EMA clinical trial disclosure rules create prior art risks and discover practical strategies to protect pharmaceutical IP and maximise patent value.
Chinese companies and the UPC: from enforcement targets to strategic users
13 August 2026
Chinese companies are playing an increasingly significant role in UPC litigation, accounting for around 38% of infringement actions in 2025. While many remain defendants, a growing number are actively using the Unified Patent Court to enforce their own patent rights across Europe. The trend highlights the UPC's rising importance for Chinese businesses operating in sectors such as telecommunications, semiconductors, medical devices and renewable energy, and signals a shift in global patent enforcement strategy.
AI's environmental impact is rarely out of the headlines, but how does it compare to the benefits it delivers in practice? In this article, Laurence Brown examines the energy use of AI-assisted patent drafting, comparing it with traditional drafting workflows. While measuring AI's true environmental footprint is far from straightforward, the analysis suggests that AI-assisted patent drafting may already be more energy efficient, while delivering significant productivity gains for patent professionals.
UPC appeals after three years: Early indications on appeal success rates
15 July 2026
Three years into the UPC, appeal overturn rates sit at 56% for both substantive and preliminary injunction cases, with Kodak v Fujifilm among the rulings reshaping outcomes on appeal.
The UPC After Three Years: From Experiment to Enforcement Forum
15 July 2026
1,282 cases filed at the UPC in three years: infringement actions have surged while revocation filings stayed flat, easing fears the Court would become a European patent graveyard.
On the Technically Legal podcast, EIP partner Laurence Brown discusses how Visser AI is redesigning patent workflows, letting the firm offer fixed fees without trading away speed or quality.
Choosing your SEP battleground: UPC, Germany or UK?
07 June 2026
Choosing the right venue for SEP litigation can significantly influence the outcome of FRAND disputes. This article compares the UPC, German and UK courts, examining their approaches to injunctions, FRAND defences, rate-setting and enforcement. It highlights the strategic advantages of each jurisdiction and explains why many SEP owners are increasingly turning to the UK and UPC as part of their European enforcement strategy.
This article explores the resurgence of synthetic lethality in precision oncology, highlighting how AI and machine learning are accelerating the discovery of new therapeutic targets. It also examines growing clinical activity, investment, and the evolving intellectual property challenges shaping this emerging field.
EIP has officially launched Visser AI®, our hybrid intelligence service for patent drafting and prosecution. Watch the launch film from our event at The Boundary in Shoreditch, and discover how our team of European and US patent attorneys — working with the Patently AI platform , delivers faster, lower-cost work at the EPO, USPTO and beyond.
Protecting Your Startup: Five Intellectual Property Mistakes to Avoid
20 May 2026
Early‑stage startups often focus on product development and fundraising, but overlooking intellectual property (IP) can seriously damage long‑term value. This article explores five common IP mistakes startups make, with a particular focus on patents. It covers the risks of filing patents without professional advice, making public disclosures too early, failing to put enforceable contracts in place with third parties, misunderstanding what patent rights actually provide, and neglecting to develop a clear IP strategy. By highlighting these pitfalls and offering practical guidance, the article helps startups protect their innovations, strengthen their commercial position, and improve their prospects with investors.
VAR, goal-line tech, AI 3D player avatars, wearable trackers, the technology reshaping the 2026 World Cup and elite sport rests on a patent system that makes the R&D investment behind it worth taking.
Patents or Trade Secrets? When to Patent in Deep Tech Innovation
11 May 2026
Deep tech companies face unique IP challenges due to long development cycles, high upfront investment, and complex technologies that combine products and processes. This article explores when patents, trade secrets, or a combination of both offer the strongest protection. It explains how factors such as detectability, reverse engineering risk, disclosure to third parties, and employee mobility should shape IP strategy decisions. While patents are often best suited to externally visible or licensable technologies, trade secrets can be highly effective for internal processes and know‑how that deliver performance or cost advantages.
.png)
