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,...
Data Detection Technologies Ltd v Doytec Automation Ltd UPC_CFI_554/2024
23 May 2025
Order of 25 September 2024 [1] This Order to Preserve Evidence pursuant to Art. 60 UPCA concerns a machine manufactured by the defendant that was being displayed at a 3-day trade fair.
Quantum Sensors: What are they and why do they matter to healthcare?
19 May 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,...
Introduction Innovative space sector businesses generate IP all the time. But it can be difficult to appreciate the range of IP being generated, or the value of that IP.
Charged Up: Are we missing the potential of domestic battery storage for the energy transition?
21 May 2024
It's accepted that batteries will play a more and more important role in managing electricity demand as we transition to a greater proportion of renewables, but have we been thinking about them in...
First published by Process Engineering - February 2024 The world's population stands above 8 billion in 2024 and is still growing. That growth may be slowing down but nonetheless there may be another...
In this article we take a look at how trade secrets and patents compare as means of protecting inventions by UK space sector businesses. Background Properly protecting intellectual property is a key...
The UK National Semiconductor Strategy: a first glance
23 May 2023
The UK Government has released its National Semiconductor Strategy. The Strategy sets out the UK Government's vision for the semiconductor industry in the UK, and details funding and other...
Lock up your authors! ChatGPT is here! And it's coming for your IP! The internet is awash with content written about, or written by, the new chat-bot in town, ChatGPT.
The grant of a European Patent allows patent rights to be obtained in respect of over 35 states by means of the respective validation procedures for those states.
Owners of European patent rights (both pending and granted patents) need to decide, in respect of each right individually, whether to opt out of the Unified Patent Court ("UPC") system.
The Registry of the Unified Patent Court maintains a number of Registers which are publicly accessible via their website at www.unified-patent-court.org.
A registered intellectual property right such as a patent is normally considered a property right of the country in which it has effect. Rules relating to the patent as an object of property, for...
What are the options if you want to avoid the UPC?
03 November 2022
During the transitional period, it is possible to opt classical (i.e. non-unitary) European patents and applications out of the competence of the UPC (provided that no action has commenced at the UPC...
.png)
