Quantum technology – a century of opportunity? And if so, who owns it?

Last year was the Year of Quantum Science and Technology, as declared by the United Nations. So, how was the world standing by the end of it?

Camille Georges is Specialist in Quantum Technology at the World Economic Forum (WEF), which has just hosted its annual meeting in Davos. Speaking at a Westminster eForum policy conference on quantum opportunities recently, she said:

We've seen an unprecedented surge in quantum investment. We see quantum technologies now shifting from an explorative phase to early adoption across both the public and private sectors. At the WEF, we launched the Quantum Economy Network four years ago to help governments, businesses, and academia understand the implications of what we refer to as the Emerging Quantum Economy.

Quantum technologies across computing, communications, sensing, and security are giving rise to new industry players and new business models, but also to new solutions to problems that were previously out of reach. Some of these technologies are already being deployed, while others are advancing rapidly. Together, they are shaping a distinctive economic ecosystem driven by quantum capabilities: the Emerging Quantum Economy.

Good news. Among others, the Financial Services sector is an early adopter of quantum technologies, with clear benefits in enhanced risk modelling, portfolio optimization, fraud detection, and resilient cryptographic systems. Georges explained:

Early adopters are not only positioning themselves to unlock future performance gains, but also mitigating emerging risks and establishing strategic partnerships well ahead of broad industry uptake.

Importantly, these developments align with the UK's vision to become a quantum-enabled economy, especially given the UK's position as a global financial center too. But there is a problem, said Georges:

Despite being a global leader in quantum research and the only country outside the US with universities ranked in the global top ten, the UK falls significantly behind in the number of quantum technology patents. In 2025, it ranked eighth in patents granted, and seventh in patent fields behind the US, Japan, China, France, Germany and Canada. This gap suggests there is a bottleneck in translating world-class science into commercial products. Closing that IP gap is essential for positioning the UK as a quantum-leading country, and protecting the scientific advances that are developed domestically.

Then she added:

Such patents are not only outputs, but also critical indicators of competitive advantage and market readiness. Stressing this translation gap requires collaboration and coordinated approaches as quantum technologies mature. And the need for trusted spaces for dialog, governance and partnership becomes even more critical. So, the challenge ahead is not discovery, but deployment. Ensuring that the UK's remarkable research base translates into scalable solutions, stronger intellectual property and competitive industries is essential.

Not enough patenting going on

This theme was picked up by others at the conference. Louis Barson, Director of Science, Business and Education at the Institute of Physics, said:

The UK doesn't patent much compared to its international peers. We are eighteenth or nineteenth in terms of the Global Innovation Index rankings. So, to an extent, I think it's heartening that we are better than the average in quantum. But I think there is a bigger issue. We have a history of really going for things and then changing course and not realizing the lead that we've built.

Actually the UK came sixth in WIPO’s Global Innovation Index 2025, but you take his point...

This is certainly true in robotics, which is no longer a core technology in the Industrial Strategy, despite the enormous potential of physical AI, especially in the form of humanoid robots. Barson continued:

We need to avoid that in quantum. We need to be capitalising on the investment and foresight we've had in the UK program. Part of that will be building a culture of patenting, where it doesn't exist so strongly in the UK. The UK is not a massive ‘patenter’ in general. But ultimately, it’s about what we're producing, not whether we're patenting or not. It’s about whether we're using it intelligently. And there are lots of ways of protecting IP other than just patenting.

A fair point. The UK’s quantum expertise is mainly located within its universities, academic hubs, and research labs. So, does academia’s pressure to publish run counter to the drive to patent? Professor Dame Molly Stevens is Co-Director of the Q-BIOMED Hub. She said:

I run a very translational group. We would always consider patenting before publishing if we felt the technology could have a useful societal impact. So, I think it's probably very group dependent. What would certainly be helpful across the UK would be as great a speed as possible, in enabling things like patenting of innovations, and enabling companies to spin out. Because I think speed is really of the essence here. If you can protect IP faster, and if you can spin out companies faster, then you can then raise the funding faster and get going.

The WEF’s Georges added:

For the UK to close its IP gap, one of the aspects is making IP expertise available to UK research groups, to enable them to turn their ideas into products and companies. That's one area where the UK could implement further advice or help, not only financially, but also in providing this expertise. It’s very specific, but very helpful for researchers, and that could lead to a full ecosystem of advice, training, and mentoring on IP.

Again, this is true. One thing the US is much better at, especially in States such as California and Texas, is building accelerators whose core purpose is to put researchers and start-ups in touch with funders and then bootstrap the commercialisation of good ideas.

Even so, Dr Christa Zoufal, Manager of UK Quantum Research and Quantum Applications at IBM Research Europe, urged the UK not to overlook its academic brilliance, saying:

There are various ways to put out IP and demonstrate the quality of research and innovation that is happening in the UK. On the one hand, yes, there are patents, which are an important indicator, but academic publication is still important. The external eminence and the quantum ecosystem of UK academic institutions is very, very high. And the start-up scene is very strong too. That ecosystem is producing a lot of knowledge, and IP that is recognized as being strong and world leading. So, the bottom line is that patent is only one side of the medal [sic].

IP

Giles Pratt is Partner at multi=national law firm Freshfields, which has a significant IP practice. He said:

Quantum innovation is going to be protected by a range of IP rights, from patents to trade secrets to copyright. Patents are probably one of the most obvious IP rights that jump out at people when they think of quantum technologies, and the US and Chinese companies in this space have really been at the forefront of patenting quantum technology. The biggest ‘thickets’ of patents for quantum technology are in the US and China.

In this regard, the UK may have created some unnecessary obstacles for itself, he suggested:

In January [2025] the UK’s Intellectual Property Office updated its guidance on quantum, and it said that, for patent purposes, quantum computers should be treated in the same way as classical computers. But that means there's an exclusion of software from patent protection.  While I appreciate that software is just one aspect of how we get the quantum ecosystem working, that guidance could be important, and it has been criticized because it doesn't break down some of the core differentiating features of quantum computing. And the difficulty in patenting a quantum computing system and the software within it has already started to play out in patent applications and related cases.

So, we're starting to see that quantum processes are not being given patent protection in this country. And if we are growth focused, if we are looking at how we're going to promote companies wanting to innovate here, that might be cause for reconsidering the Intellectual Property Office’s approach. There are concerns I’ve heard voiced that some of our inventors are going to migrate overseas if they can secure themselves better and find more favourable patent protection elsewhere.

My take

What’s that you say? The UK’s Intellectual Property Office might be making inept and self-defeating decisions? Surely not! (For an explanation of my sarcasm, see my report earlier this week on AI and copyright...)

But Pratt continued that, in many cases, quantum innovations are protected as trade secrets, rather than publicised via patents or within academic publishing. He added:

There might be scenarios where it's hard to enforce your IP in a quantum patent, because the alleged infringer may be working in secret under national security protections, and so it's going to be very hard to get disclosure of the thing that you say is infringing. Our sense is that facilitating patent protection for quantum technologies is still going to be important. It tends to be a focus for people when they're looking at investment into businesses to understand whether they've secured patent protection.

Obviously, that is true. So, is the UK investable? Only you can be the judge of that. But one wonders whether the Intellectual Property Office is really fit for purpose. At present, it is making one dumb decision after another, in the belief it is supporting UK growth. Call me old fashioned, but perhaps it should get back to… protecting intellectual property?

Just a thought.