IP Business Talk: Developing and Maintaining Quantum Patent Portfolios

The CEIPI IP Business Talk with Dr. Urs Ferber explored how quantum companies can build patent👉 A legal right granting exclusive control over an invention for a limited time. portfolios in a field where technologies, markets and dominant designs are still emerging. The discussion showed that quantum IP is not only about patentability, but about commercial relevance, timing, FTO, investor expectations, trade secrets, funding models and future licensing👉 Permission to use a right or asset granted by its owner. positions. The Quantum IP Expert Contributors added practical perspectives on claim drafting, inventor👉 A person who creates new devices, methods, or processes. involvement, publication pressure, sufficiency, standards and business model👉 A business model outlines how a company creates, delivers, and captures value. alignment.

Key message:
Quantum patent portfolios must remain flexible, technically credible and strategically connected to the company’s roadmap, because early IP decisions shape future freedom to operate👉 Strategic analysis to determine whether a product or service might infringe existing IP rights., investment readiness and long-term value.

The CEIPI IP Business Talk with Dr. Urs Ferber focused on a practical and increasingly urgent question: how can quantum companies build patent portfolios that remain commercially relevant while the technology, the market and the competitive landscape are still in motion?

From the beginning, the discussion was not framed as a narrow debate about patentability. The central issue was portfolio design. Quantum technology is developing across hardware, software, algorithms, control systems, error correction, communication, sensing and enabling technologies. For many companies, especially start-ups and university spin-outs, the challenge is not simply to protect one invention. The challenge is to decide which technical positions may become strategically important before the later product architecture is fully visible.

Dr. Urs Ferber set the tone by emphasizing that patents must be treated as commercial assets. A patent application requires investment: drafting, filing, prosecution, maintenance and later strategic use. For that reason, the decision to file should be aligned with the company’s commercial roadmap. For quantum start-ups, this means asking whether a technical development supports the next business milestone, the next funding round, the product roadmap or a future licensing position. The discussion repeatedly returned to this point: quantum IP is not a downstream legal formality. It is part of how a company structures its future freedom to act.

A particularly important contribution came from Lukas Brunkhorst, who raised the question of claim breadth and fallback positions. He suggested that quantum start-ups should generally draft initial claims broadly while disclosing sufficient fallback options, so that prosecution flexibility is preserved as R&D roadmaps evolve. This question captured one of the core tensions of quantum patent work. If claims are too narrow, the portfolio may become obsolete as the technology evolves. If they are too broad, the application may run into prior art, sufficiency or credibility problems. Ferber agreed with the general direction but added an important strategic nuance: sometimes a more targeted claim scope may be preferable, for example when a start-up needs a meaningful search result for investors. In such cases, broader claim material can still be placed in the description to preserve flexibility.

Dr. Angelika Hutterer brought the discussion closer to the actual innovation process👉 A structured journey of creating and implementing new ideas.. She emphasized the importance of involving inventors at a very early stage when building a product-oriented portfolio. Her point was not merely procedural. In quantum technology, inventors often understand better than anyone else whether a technical feature is likely to become relevant for the company’s own product line, whether it may be useful as a blocking position, or whether it is only scientifically interesting. This contribution highlighted that good quantum IP work begins before the patent attorney receives a polished invention disclosure. It begins with structured conversations with inventors, technical teams and business decision-makers.

Her second point concerned competition👉 Rivalry between entities striving for a shared goal or limited resource.. Filing decisions in quantum do not depend only on the company’s own invention. They also depend on how much, how fast and in which direction competitors are filing. This connects directly to Ferber’s broader message: a patent portfolio is not only a record of what a company has invented. It is also a strategic instrument in relation to others. Patents are exclusionary rights, and quantum companies must understand which parts of the technology stack they may need to control, defend or use in negotiations.

Dr. Burkhard Scharfenberger focused on timing. He pointed to a structural pressure that is especially relevant in Europe: the absence of a broad grace period and the academic publication culture in quantum research. Many people working in quantum technology are researchers who want to publish quickly. This can force early filing, even where economic viability is not yet fully apparent. Ferber responded by drawing a helpful distinction between scientific discovery and commercial implementation. The subject matter of a scientific paper does not always have to be identical with the subject matter of the patent application. A company may publish the scientific insight while keeping the commercially relevant implementation separate and protected. This distinction is crucial for university spin-outs and research-driven start-ups. It allows IP strategy👉 Approach to manage, protect, and leverage IP assets. and publication strategy to be coordinated rather than treated as opposing forces.

Adrian Steffens added a doctrinally precise but highly practical perspective on sufficiency. In response to a question about quantum algorithms that cannot yet be executed meaningfully because current hardware lacks enough physical qubits or sufficiently low error rates, he noted that problems arise if the skilled person cannot carry out the claimed invention at the filing date. This contribution is important because quantum patenting often takes place at the frontier between what is theoretically sound and what is technically executable. The key lesson is that early filing must not become speculative filing. A patent application should not merely describe an aspiration. It must disclose a technically credible invention that can support the claimed scope.

Erik Visscher placed FTO, portfolio building, trade secrets and standardisation into one strategic frame. His comment that freedom-to-operate and patent portfolio building are complementary was one of the central insights of the discussion. FTO identifies where a company has room to act. A patent portfolio helps keep others at a distance and can therefore reinforce the company’s own freedom to act. This is particularly important for investors, who do not only ask whether a start-up owns patents. They also want to know whether the company can commercialise without running into blocking positions held by others.

Visscher also warned that relying on trade secrets can be tricky in start-up and scale-up environments where people join and leave the organisation. This point is especially relevant in quantum technology, where knowledge often flows through universities, research collaborations, guest researchers, joint development projects and investor due diligence. Trade secret👉 Protects confidential business info for competitive advantage. protection is not simply the absence of filing. It requires governance, training, access control, documentation and contractual discipline. The live talk therefore made clear that the question is not “patent or trade secret” in the abstract. The real question is which knowledge should be patented, which should be kept confidential, and whether the organisation is capable of protecting confidentiality in practice.

Visscher further broadened the discussion by referring to standardisation, especially in quantum communication, computing stacks and related interfaces. This opened an important forward-looking perspective. Quantum technology may not yet be mature enough for final standards in many areas, but the emergence of standard-setting activities could eventually raise issues known from telecommunications, including the role of standard-essential patents. The strategic implication is clear: companies active in quantum should not only watch competitors and investors. They should also monitor emerging technical standards, ecosystems and interoperability👉 Systems' ability to exchange and use data seamlessly. layers.

Edd Cavanna introduced the funding dimension. His question about the pros and cons of government funding versus private investment led to one of the most commercially relevant parts of the talk. Ferber explained that public funding can be important and more accessible in early stages, but it may be slower. Private investors, by contrast, often look more closely at the commercial roadmap and whether the patent strategy supports it. This has direct implications for IP advisers. Portfolio work must be continuously aligned with financing priorities. A patent strategy is not decided once and then left unchanged. It must evolve with funding rounds, technical milestones, investor expectations and commercial direction.

Cavanna’s contribution also connected to business model differences. A quantum hardware company may need a different filing strategy from a company offering Quantum-as-a-Service or algorithmic solutions. Hardware infringement👉 Unauthorized use or exploitation of IP rights. may be easier to detect. Software, services, algorithms and internal control methods may be harder to observe and enforce. This affects the balance between patents, know-how, contracts and licensing. The discussion around licensing also showed that quantum commercialisation will not be uniform. In some areas, especially hardware components with higher technology readiness, licensing may become relevant earlier. In others, protection may remain more closely tied to know-how, platform control or partnership agreements.

The live talk’s strongest message was that quantum patent portfolios cannot be built by applying a standard filing logic. Quantum companies operate under simultaneous pressures: scientific publication, investor expectations, public funding requirements, private funding milestones, competitor activity, FTO risk👉 The probability of adverse outcomes due to uncertainty in future events., uncertain dominant designs and fast-moving technical roadmaps. In such an environment, the role of IP Subject Matter Experts becomes essential. They translate technological uncertainty into structured IP decisions.

The contributions of the six Quantum IP Expert Contributors showed exactly why this is necessary. Lukas Brunkhorst sharpened the claim-drafting problem. Dr. Angelika Hutterer emphasized inventor involvement and competitive awareness. Dr. Burkhard Scharfenberger highlighted the timing pressure created by publication and novelty👉 Requirement that an invention must be new and not previously disclosed. rules. Adrian Steffens defined the boundary between early protection and insufficient disclosure. Erik Visscher connected FTO, trade secrets, enforcement and standards. Edd Cavanna brought funding, business models and licensing into the centre of the portfolio discussion.

Together, these perspectives made the live talk more than an interview. It became a practical map of the decision space that quantum companies must navigate. The key conclusion is simple but demanding: in quantum technology, IP must move at the speed of the business, but it must do so with enough technical depth, legal precision and strategic discipline to remain valuable as the field matures.

Overall, machine learning is transforming patent search👉 A systematic review of patents literature. by making it more precise, insightful, and efficient. As ML technology continues to evolve, we can expect even more powerful tools and capabilities to emerge, empowering innovators to navigate the vast world of patents with greater ease and clarity.