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,...
expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to...
UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
A Cloud of Uncertainty: Implications of G 1/23 for Software Companies
29 July 2025
On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...
Flawed consultation on Standard Essential Patents launched by UK Government
29 July 2025
Earlier this month, the UK Government unveiled its latest consultation on Standard Essential Patents, proposing some "practical steps" which they are considering to "create a more balanced system"...
UPC refuses extension of deadline for review of seizure order after refusal of service
22 July 2025
Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub Council Order of 14 July 2025 (ORD_26742/2025 [1]) This article follows up on the UPC...
UPC grants ‘in absentia’ permanent injunction on agricultural tool
21 July 2025
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v Spiridonakis Bros GP (UPC_CFI_513/2024 relating to EP1998604) Order of 25 June 2025 (ORD_17812/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court...
Applying Ocado, the UPC grants a R262 request to access CFI documents
09 July 2025
NJOY Netherlands B.V v Juul Labs International, Inc (UPC_CFI_309/2023) Order issued 9 June 2025 (ORD_27305/2025) [1] The Paris Central Division revoked Juul Lab's patent EP 3 498 115 B1 by decision...
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) now has jurisdiction over 18 of the 27 EU states and advertises itself as an EU court but is there any prospect of the UK getting involved in the Unified Patent Court...
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
25 June 2025
UPC_CFI_58/2024 Following a decision, a successful party has one month to apply for a costs decision (Rule 151). In the relevant case, the main decision (dated 19 February 2025) stated that the...
Provisional Injunction Denied for Small Molecule Kinase Inhibitor
19 June 2025
Zentiva Portugal, LDA v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH (UPC_CFI_41/2025 relating to EP1830843) Court of First Instance Order dated 8 May 2025 ORD_18599/2025 [1] Summary The Application for...
Avoiding Added Matter Pitfalls: Mastering Amendments Before the EPO
17 June 2025
"Added matter" objections are a common and often frustrating hurdle in European patent prosecution. The European Patent Office (EPO) takes a particularly strict stance on claim amendments, especially...
The UPC two years on: Withdrawals of actions becoming prominent
09 June 2025
The Unified Patent Court has now been running for two years. To mark the occasion, we have looked at the cases and the decisions over the past two years, and share our thoughts on the current state...
INTA 2026 Essentials: Where to stay, what to see and what to do
03 June 2025
Discover the INTA 2026 Essentials! This comprehensive guide will help you navigate your stay, showcasing the best accommodations, must-see attractions, and exciting activities to enjoy during your visit.
AI and Bitstreams at the Core of China’s Patent Update
28 May 2025
On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a draft amendment of the Patent Examination Guidelines (for public comment), proposing further revisions to...
.png)
