The people, physics and patents of the 2025 Nobel prize

No items found.
​
December 9, 2025

The Nobel Prize in physics 2025 was awarded to John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret and John M. Martinis “for the discovery of macroscopic quantum mechanical tunnelling and energy quantisation in an electric circuit” [1]. Their discovery paved the way for the race to achieve a working quantum computer and quantum supremacy – demonstrating a programmable quantum computer can solve a problem infeasible for any classical computer. Thus, the three physicists are rightfully rewarded for showing a phenomenon that provides a significant source of technical innovation today. Interestingly, Clarke, Devoret and Martinis have also been prolific in patenting their findings and technologies and getting on the deep tech patent train, probably before the word was even invented. In the light of the Nobel ceremony, this article will dive into the people, physics and patents of macroscopic quantum tunnelling (MQT).

Figure 1: Illustration of an electron tunnelling through a potential barrier. The wave amplitude is smaller outside the barrier, indicating a lower probability of finding the particle there. AI-generated imagery

Bringing quantum tunnelling to the macroscopic scale

Let’s start with an overview of the science. As many of us know, a classical particle in a potential well, for example a golf ball in a cup, will never leave the well unless energy is brought into the system. For the golf ball, this might mean lifting it out of the cup. However, a particle governed by the laws of quantum mechanics may spontaneously leave a potential well without any addition of energy to the system, in a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling. This happens for tiny particles such as electrons and has been a well-known phenomenon for decades. Simplifying somewhat, the probability and strength of quantum tunnelling can be said to be inversely proportional to the size of the system. As illustrated in Figure 1, the probability of the particle existing outside the potential well is smaller, but not zero, and reduces with the size of the system. Once the effect had been demonstrated for the electron, the question became how large a system could become before the probability of quantum tunnelling becomes negligible, and the search for a system exhibiting MQT was inevitable.

Physicists discovered a candidate for MQT in superconducting circuits. One such circuit is called a current biased Josephson junction, illustrated in Figure 2, formed from two superconducting leads (A and B) separated by a potential barrier (C).

Figure 2: A schematic diagram of a Josephson junction. From [2] under CC-BY SA 3.0.

According to the BCS theory of superconductivity, pairs of electrons may bind together at sufficiently low temperatures, forming what is known as Cooper pairs. The theoretical potential seen by Cooper pairs at C will be of the shape of a tilted washboard as shown in Figure 3. At zero current, the Cooper pair (depicted as a black ball) cannot move. When the bias current over the Josephson junction increases, it may tunnel through the barrier, and no voltage will be seen between A and B. As the current further increases, the potential will be so steep that even a classical particle may “roll” down the potential, and a voltage will be seen between A and B. The current where a voltage can be seen across the junction is called the critical current.

Figure 3: Tilted washboard potentials with increasing current. Own work.

In the beginning of the 1980s, experiments were performed to experimentally verify this behaviour. When the bias current across a Josephson junction was increased gradually, a critical current could indeed be detected. However, there was uncertainty regarding whether this effect was due to disturbances in the circuit, noise or true superconductivity.

When John Clarke was working at the University of California, he formed a group with his doctoral student John Martinis and post-doc Michel Devoret to conduct a series of experiments that finally confirmed, beyond reasonable doubt, that the effect seen in the Josephson junction indeed was MQT. They showed that a circuit “big enough to get one’s grubby fingers on” [1] could be made to exhibit quantum tunnelling. This laid the groundwork for the decades of work on quantum computing and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that followed.

A case study of deep tech patents

The three physicists continued working on applications for Josephson junctions, many of which have been patented. A search for patents attributed to at least one of the laureates reveals 53 patent families totalling 434 patents across the world. The most significant portion of the families, 23 of them, are attributed to Martinis and collaborators. Yale University owns 18 families, while 16 are owned by Google and mostly relate to Martinis’ work with quantum computing, and 11 by the University of California. Let’s dive into two of them relating to MRI.

An early patent attributed to Clarke, Martinis and Claude Hilbert, US patent 4585999 A, claims priority in April of 1984. The patent concerns an amplifier based on a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) and was owned by the US Department of Energy. The device comprises two Josephson junctions, showing its practical applicability at an early stage. It is mentioned in the patent that the device “would have particular use in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging”, also known as MRI.

Figure 4: A schematic drawing of a SQUID. From US4585999A

Fast-forwarding a few years, a patent attributed to Clarke and collaborators claiming priority in February 2002, EP1474707B1, indeed concerns “SQUID detected NMR and MRI at ultra low fields”. MRI is normally performed at magnetic field strengths around 1-10 T, while the patent describes NMR using fields in the micro tesla range using a SQUID as a magnetometer, shown as 33 in Figure 5. This is in the same range as the magnetic field of the Earth. Such a device would thus be able to detect the miniscule fields produced by nuclei excited by micro tesla fields while simultaneously distinguishing them from noise and the Earth. Although MRI at ultra low fields is uncommon today, this may create the opportunity to build portable MRI machines in the future, increasing the availability of this ground-breaking technology.

Figure 5: A block diagram of NMR spectroscopy. From EP 1474707B1.

Conclusion

In summary, after demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that MQT exists, the three physicists went on to develop their techniques into something applicable. These patents show that the laureates of this year’s Nobel prize were on the case of deep tech patents even before the word was invented. Being active and claiming the rights to your inventions remains important today. If you have the opportunity to do so, take the chance. We at EIP, specialising in complex and high-value patents, would be happy to help you.

References

[1] Royal Swedish   Academy of Sciences, “The Nobel Prize in Physics 2025,” 7 October 2025.   [Online]. Available:   https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2025/10/press-physicsprize2025-2.pdf.

[2] Wikimedia Commons,   “File: Single josephson junction.svg,” 2 September 2020. [Online].   Available:   https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Single_josephson_junction.svg&oldid=446854302.   [Accessed 27 November 2025].

 

 

‍

‍

‍

‍

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

No items found.
Stay in the Know

The Patent Strategist

Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Heading
This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Latest Insights

Showing 0 of 100
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.
The contentious role of intellectual property in cryptographic standardisation
12 January 2026
This article explores how intellectual property rights affect the development and adoption of post-quantum cryptography standards. It highlights NIST’s proactive approach to patent licensing for new algorithms, reviews historical cases like RSA and ECC, and discusses the importance of clear IP terms for widespread cryptographic adoption.
System architecture in quantum computing – history repeating itself?
24 December 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.
Strategic licensing: Turning IP into commercial value
09 December 2025
In today’s competitive landscape, effective commercial licensing strategies are essential for unlocking the full value of intellectual property. This article explores four critical pillars: understanding intellectual property as a property right, the fundamentals of licensing intellectual property rights, structuring successful joint ventures and best practices for intellectual property rights management. Whether you’re navigating new markets or scaling established innovations, these tips provide a roadmap for protecting, leveraging and maximizing your IP assets.
The people, physics and patents of the 2025 Nobel prize
09 December 2025
The 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics recognised John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret, and John M. Martinis for proving macroscopic quantum tunnelling in electric circuits, a breakthrough that enabled quantum computing. Their pioneering research led to hundreds of patents, including innovations in MRI and quantum technology, highlighting the real-world impact of their discoveries.
Vision 2035: The need for Innovation to meet ambitious targets set by the UK’s new critical minerals strategy
03 December 2025
The UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy 2025 sets ambitious targets to secure essential minerals for key industries by boosting domestic production, recycling, and innovation. The article highlights the vital role of intellectual property (IP) in supporting technological advances, encouraging collaboration, and strengthening the UK’s supply chains for a sustainable future.
Research underlying Nobel prize in chemistry has sparked innovation and patent filings
02 December 2025
The 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry recognised the creators of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), innovative materials with huge potential for water harvesting, clean energy, and environmental solutions. Their work has sparked a surge in global patent activity and new industrial application.
UKIPO fee increases from April 2026: What it means for your IP strategy
25 November 2025
Provisional and interim injunctions both refer to temporary court orders granted before a full trial, aimed at preserving the status quo or preventing harm. In UK law, “interim injunction” is the standard term, while “provisional injunction” is less common and typically used in international contexts. Both serve the same purpose: urgent relief until the case is fully heard.
Sustainable models: content licensing for generative AI training
21 November 2025
It is fair to say that no technology in recent times has created so much excitement and controversy as generative AI, and in particular Large Language Models (LLMs). Generative AI companies and their backers have their sights on generating billions, if not trillions of dollars, directly or indirectly from their models. Models which, in the vast majority of cases, are trained on original works without permission from, or payment to, their authors. The works used for training are primarily obtained by scraping the open web, a uniquely vast repository of publicly accessible knowledge and information, constantly updated to reflect the latest developments in human knowledge and culture.
What should you look to protect in a (bio)pharma IP strategy?
18 November 2025
UPC takes strict approach on costs reimbursement
30 October 2025
Insulet v. EOFlow UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI 774/2025 (Milan CD), decision of 15 October 2025[1] The dispute began when Insulet sought a provisional injunction against EOFlow to prevent...
UPC Considers but does not decide exhaustion of rights in relation to consumables
30 October 2025
Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...
UPC Infringement Actions: Is Speed Meeting Expectations?
23 September 2025
The Unified Patent Court promised simplified and faster patent litigation across Europe. Two years in, we look at whether it’s delivering on that promise. For patent holders and defendants alike, the duration of infringement actions can significantly impact market strategies, investment decisions, and competitive positioning. In this article, we set out an in-depth analysis of how the court’s procedural rules are shaping the pace of litigation. By examining key milestones—from the filing of an infringement action to the issuance of a final judgment—we assess whether the UPC is delivering on its promise of efficiency.
Emerging Practice Points from the UPC
02 September 2025
We have been keeping a close eye on the decisions coming out of the UPC and as the court starts to establish itself a number of practice points are starting to emerge.