Blog

The race to build the intellectual property (IP) foundations across quantum technologies is well and truly joined. The State of the Global Quantum Industry 2026 report from the Quantum Consortium finds there are almost 70,000 active patents in the space globally, at an average annual growth of 20% over the past five years.

Given the technology’s inherent complexity, however, many roadblocks remain. Dr. Rhian Granleese is partner at Marks & Clerk, an international group of IP service providers. A patent attorney by trade, Granleese has been involved in quantum for three decades, having entered the industry straight from a PhD where she explored quantum effects in semiconductors. “Where we’re seeing more difficulties is in protecting the quantum algorithms,” she explains, “because it’s lovely to build a quantum computer, but unless it’s going to actually be of commercial use in a particular field, it’s probably not going to move from the research base out into the real world.”

One type of algorithm which runs particularly well on quantum computers, Granleese notes, are optimisation algorithms. These, naturally, aim to solve optimisation problems. A BQP article explains that, for practical cases such as routing vehicles across cities, or designing molecules for new drugs, the more complex the problem becomes, the more the number of possible solutions explodes exponentially. 

Quantum computers are therefore ‘fantastic’ at working on these algorithms, as Granleese puts it – yet for some patent offices, she notes the way in which they examine software ‘can sometimes not feel that intuitive to a researcher.’

“The European Patent Office (EPO) and UK Patent Office follow the same spirit of the approach; they say you can protect software if there’s a clever technical implementation, or technical application,” says Granleese. She notes that the EPO have not properly defined what a technical application is, although they have given examples, such as image and speech processing, and processing of audio signals. Yet business methods and administrative methods are considered non-technical – meaning many possible use cases fall foul.

Granleese notes there is a similar issue in regard to classical software. She gives the example of software which interprets natural language models and large language models. The EPO has ruled that processes involving translating natural human language into another language, or an abstract formal language, for instance, are categorised as linguistic problems – which are considered to be non-technical.

Yet while this is not entirely a quantum-specific concern, the type of algorithms in which quantum technologies particularly specialise is where many of the barriers are in being able to protect it. “That’s where I see the real challenge in protecting quantum software,” says Granleese. “Currently, we’ve got a block on software that’s directed towards some applications for which quantum computers are particularly well suited.

“If you are trying to protect an algorithm for an application that the EPO class as non-technical, protection may still be possible to obtain a patent if by demonstrating that the software is directed towards a specific technical implementation. For example, it might be possible to demonstrate that your software, that is primarily intended for optimising transport logistics, is directed towards a particularly clever way of using the quantum computer.  However, it is difficult to demonstrate that there is a specific technical implementation when the clever part of the software is purely in the algorithm, as opposed to how the algorithm is specifically adapted for the quantum computer.”

Granleese is participating at Microelectronics UK and lending her expertise on how quantum technologies will impact the microelectronics landscape. “One way in which I see quantum technologies really driving microelectronic design is due to the need to always have to have a quantum computer hand in hand with a classical computer.  There will be developments in the interface between the CPU and QPU, how the processing is split between the CPU and QPU, and this will also feed through to the overall CPU design,” Granleese says.

One area which is key, she notes, amid the countdown to Q-Day when quantum computers can break RSA and other encryption standards, is post-quantum cryptography. Whether this could drive processor design ‘is still something to be decided.’ Yet in some ways, Granleese argues, the scenario could be turned on its head – how will the next level of processors and microelectronics be developed to better support the quantum industry?

“The other aspect is the overlap between classical fabrication techniques and the fabrication of quantum processors,” Granleese adds. “When I was doing my PhD… I spent a lot of time in a semiconductor clean room making quantum dots, building e-beam gates, and now all that technology is being used in developing quantum processors.  All the technology that’s used to shrink semiconductor circuits, to increase density, to improve your yield of chips; all of that has come from the classical area and now that’s being put into the quantum area.

“One of the key qubit designs at the minute is based on superconducting qubits,” adds Granleese. “And I know you [can] say superconductors and semiconductors are different, but it’s the same type of processing you need. So, I think we’re also seeing a lot of the fabrication side of semiconductors being transplanted into the quantum space as well.”

Writing in April, David Bharier, head of research at the British Chambers of Commerce, noted – with a glance to the semiconductor arena – that the UK’s recurring problem was ‘developing transformative technologies without capturing the full economic prize.’ Could the UK win in quantum where it didn’t in semiconductor?

Granleese is bullish. “You look at the number of quantum computing companies and quantum technology companies the UK is producing; they’re all growing and they’re all doing fantastically well,” she says, citing Oxford Quantum Circuits, Riverlane and ORCA. She notes the scalability is a ‘problem as old as the hills’, but there are ‘many initiatives taking place at the moment to… make sure the UK will be able to continue to punch its weight.’ “We just need to be really able to move the dial and get a big quantum computing company out of the UK.”

Perhaps the best way to assess the quantum landscape is by drawing parallels to the development of the GPU, Granleese notes. When the original GPUs on multi-core processors were being developed, they were purely for graphics. AI was further down the line and, arguably, could not have been forecast. “I think we’ll see the same thing with quantum,” she says. “I think it’s very dangerous to say, ‘oh, this is where the ceiling is going to be’, because I think the sky’s the limit, frankly.”

Regardless, the depth of change during Granleese’s tenure to date has been inspiring to her. “Seeing what can be achieved now, compared to what [could] be achieved in the 90s, it’s been very exciting,” Granleese concludes. “I feel hugely privileged that I’ve had a ringside seat on the technology developing over that time.”