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

Analysis of Intel’s cellular patent portfolio
September 20, 2019
Intel has built a cellular portfolio of 5G patent assets at some pace. The industry should take note, says James Seymour in this article in the September 2019 issue of Intellectual Property Magazine.
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
UPC Agreement Is Not EU Law, No Referrals to CJEU
01 September 2025
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...
#
Litigation
​
Unconventional Service: igus v. Whale Technology
29 August 2025
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.
#
Litigation
​
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...
#
Consulting
​
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"...
#
Litigation
​
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...
#
Litigation
​
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...
#
Litigation
​
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...
#
Litigation
​
Unified Patent Court: The Impact of Brexit
26 June 2025
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...
#
Consulting
​
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...
#
Litigation
​
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...
#
Litigation
​
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...
#
Patenting
​
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...
#
Litigation
​
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.
#
Patenting
​
Building a Resilient Quantum Patent Portfolio: Winning the Race to File First
29 May 2025
A key question for those working in a fast-paced and complex industry such as quantum technology is when to patent any technological developments.
#
Consulting
​
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...
#
Patenting
​