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,...
Recent US court decisions have, for the first time, tested whether conversations with AI tools can be protected by legal privilege. In United States v. Heppner, a court held that documents generated by a defendant using a public AI platform were not protected by attorney‑client privilege, largely because the AI was not used within a lawyer‑directed relationship and the platform’s terms allowed data retention and disclosure. By contrast, in Warner v. Gilbarco, another court found that AI‑assisted materials created by a self‑represented litigant were protected under the work‑product doctrine, which has a more forgiving standard for waiver.
The evolution of nucleic acid sequencing and what it means for Genomics and IP
27 April 2026
This article outlines the evolution of nucleic acid sequencing, from early Sanger methods to next‑generation and long‑read technologies. The journey from deciphering individual DNA strands to sequencing entire genomes in hours represents one of biotechnology's most impressive transformations. The first human genome, completed through the Human Genome Project, took around 13 years to sequence and cost billions of dollars, whereas modern sequencing methods can now deliver a genome in hours for a few hundred dollars. For those interested in patents and life sciences, understanding the technical evolution of sequencing methods offers insights into how fundamental scientific advances translate into valuable patent portfolios.
World IP Day: The big ideas shaping IP's fastest-moving fields
24 April 2026
For World IP Day, we asked experts of EIP’s five growth areas: Uniphy, Ampliphy, Stratiphy, Codiphy and Quantiphy, to share a quick insight on innovation, IP trends, and what excites them about the future. Each responded to a single, focused question reflecting the role their team plays across EIP.
INTA's Annual Meeting is coming to London. From 2–6 May 2026, the ExCeL will host more than 10,000 trade mark and IP professionals from over 100 jurisdictions — five days of sessions, side events, and the kind of corridor conversations that turn into lasting working relationships.
Antibody Patent Protection in Europe and the US: Navigating EPO and USPTO Differences
16 April 2026
This article explores the complexities of patenting antibody therapies, focusing on the differing requirements and practices of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It highlights how the scope of claims, inventiveness standards, and supporting data requirements vary between jurisdictions, and explains why a tailored IP strategy is essential for innovators especially SMEs seeking protection in both Europe and the US. The article also outlines how EIP’s transatlantic teams collaborate to optimise patent applications for success in these key markets.
Why competitor patent monitoring is critical to your drug development strategy
15 April 2026
This article explains why competitor IP monitoring is a critical part of an effective drug development strategy. By tracking competitor patent activity, companies can assess freedom to operate, identify risks and opportunities early, and make informed decisions on patent filings, licensing, and investment readiness. Ongoing monitoring also supports FTO analysis, third‑party observations, oppositions, and litigation strategy, helping life sciences businesses protect value and reduce risk throughout development.
Biopharma Strategy in 2026: Lessons from 2025 on AI, M&A and the UPC
13 April 2026
This article looks back on a selection of key trends in the (bio)pharma industry in 2025 and looks ahead to how these may continue to develop into 2026.
Thinking about IP from day one: strategic considerations for deep tech startups
08 April 2026
For deep tech startups, intellectual property decisions often come too late or cost too much too soon. This article explores why IP strategy should be considered from day one, even if formal protection comes later. It outlines how founders can decide what to patent, when trade secrets may be more appropriate, and how detectability, enforceability and cost should shape early choices. With a focus on practicality and commercial alignment, it also looks at how newer, AI‑assisted approaches can help startups take a more cost‑effective and flexible approach to building meaningful IP protection.
National offices report increases in national patent applications throughout Europe: Is the EPO no longer “killing” the national offices?
27 March 2026
National patent offices across Europe have reported a marked increase in patent filings in 2025, breaking with a long‑standing downward trend. Data from Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Spain and Norway point to growing activity driven by digital technologies, electrification and increased university participation. At the same time, offices report a rise in self‑drafted and AI‑assisted applications, which may lower barriers to entry but also raise concerns about application quality and examination efficiency.
This recap of our LinkedIn Live series focuses on helping (bio)pharma businesses make their IP investment‑ready. Across three sessions, experts will discuss building resilient IP portfolios, making strategic IP decisions ahead of funding rounds, and what the evolving 2026 (bio)pharma landscape means for long‑term IP strategy.
Are professional guidelines making Patent Attorneys too cautious on AI?
19 February 2026
As AI use accelerates in patent practice, many European patent attorneys remain cautious due to professional AI guidelines from the epi. This article argues those guidelines are not a barrier, but a baseline for responsible use.
Provisional Agreement Reached on the EU Pharma Package: Takeaways for Pharmaceutical Companies
17 February 2026
The EU’s new Pharma Package will overhaul regulatory exclusivity, orphan drug incentives, antimicrobial innovation, and generic entry pathways, reducing standard protection periods while introducing new rewards like transferable exclusivity vouchers.
Gene editing is entering a new phase, moving beyond CRISPR-Cas9’s breakthrough but costly, bespoke therapies toward more precise and scalable platforms. While CRISPR-based treatments like Casgevy have proven clinical success, they remain expensive and entangled in ongoing patent disputes over foundational IP. Next-generation tools such as base editing and prime editing avoid double-strand DNA breaks, enabling more accurate corrections and broader therapeutic potential. The field’s focus is now shifting to disease-agnostic platforms that can be adapted across many conditions, improving access and efficiency.
Confidentiality at the UPC: What litigants need to know
21 January 2026
This article explains how the Unified Patent Court approaches confidentiality in litigation, outlining the procedures for restricting access to sensitive information, how confidentiality clubs are formed, and when hearings may be held in private. It highlights key case law shaping these rules, the balance between fair trial rights and protection of commercial data, and the penalties for breaches. Practical guidance is provided to help parties navigate applications, manage confidential documents, and understand what to expect throughout UPC proceedings.
EPO fees are going up in April 2026: Plan ahead now
19 January 2026
The European Patent Office will introduce a fee increase of roughly 5% from 1 April 2026, affecting search, examination, designation and renewal fees. Filing, excess page, opposition and appeal fees remain unchanged. Some costs—such as renewal fees—can be paid up to three months early, allowing applicants to secure the current lower rates. EIP recommends reviewing your portfolio ahead of the deadline.
.png)
