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,...
Making the switch from in-house to private practice
28 June 2019
During his career in IP partner Matt Jones has held positions in both private practice law firms, and in-house corporate legal departments, before he joined EIP.
In an article for Intellectual Property Magazine partner Christof Höhne and legal assistant Tatiana Dolenko look at the rise of blockchain technology and how blockchain patents, and their litigation,...
With the date the UK was due to leave the European Union having passed, Partner Darren Smyth provides an update in The Law Society Gazette with regards to the continued protection of IP rights in the...
In the final part of the series of Top IP Mistakes to Avoid, partner Laurence Brown from the EIP office in Leeds warns against the pitfalls of attempting to obtain IP protection yourself.
IP Mistakes to Avoid – No. 3 – Thinking you’re covered because you’ve got the company name registered
04 October 2016
Ahead of his presentation on the Top IP Mistakes to Avoid at Leeds Business Week, partner Laurence Brown from EIP’s Leeds office dispels one of the most common myths surrounding IP protection.
IP Mistakes to Avoid – No. 2 – Revealing your idea before getting your IP in place
30 September 2016
In the second in our series of Top IP Mistakes to Avoid, partner Laurence Brown from EIP’s office in Leeds discusses how businesses often forego their chances of obtaining patent protection by making...
IP Mistakes to Avoid - No.1 - Burying your head in the sand
20 September 2016
In the lead up to EIP’s participation in Leeds Business Week, partner Laurence Brown of EIP’s Leeds office will be revealing his Top IP Mistakes to Avoid.
Patent Box and R&D tax credits: Are you missing out?
15 April 2016
EIP has teamed up with Jumpstart for an evening seminar on how innovative companies can get maximum benefit from the Patent Box and R&D tax credit schemes.
The Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP) has published an article by Darren Smyth, Robert Barker and Tim Belcher advising applicants how to handle requests for translations of...
.png)
