Global Quantum Technology Patent Map Filing Trends, Technology Innovation and Policies

 

Recent technological breakthroughs highlight the potential of second generation (2G) quantum technologies, including quantum simulation, quantum sensing and metrology, quantum computing, and quantum communications; patenting trends for such technologies are an indicator of the pace of innovation at the invention stage. Empirical studies that look at real-world patenting activity can provide valuable evidence to help assess and guide policy recommendations related to intellectual property rights (IPR), innovation, and the governance of quantum technologies.

 

Recently, a team from Stanford University, Oxford University and the University of Copenhagen evaluated patenting trends over the past 20 years to determine

 

The growth of quantum technology patents

Technology segmentation and classification of patent activity

Choice of preferred patent offices

Types of patent claims and strategies

The subject matter of recently granted patents

Leading Patent Owners

Dominant patent portfolio

Geographic distribution of this patent activity

 

Ultimately, the team demonstrates how quantum patent disclosure is moving us toward an emerging quantum information commons that is gradually strengthening the public domain. In addition, the team examines the innovation and policy implications of these results in the broader contexts of quantum innovation initiatives, market competition, the patent/trade secret interface, and quantum technology governance.

 

01Patent Search Strategy and Information List Design

 

The team developed a search strategy designed to answer the above questions. The strategy follows recommendations to ensure consistency and transparency in the patent landscape, as well as to ensure quality and reproducible patent information lists, similar approaches that have been used to analyze gene patents and patents for drug repurposing.

 

The search strategy varies from high sensitivity to high specificity to minimize false positives. In particular, the search strategy identifies

 

All patent documents broadly related to "quantum" (S1).

Core quantum technology patents (S2).

Patents with claims to "quantum"-related inventive concepts (S3).

Patents with independent claims related to quantum technology (S4).

 

S1 optimizes sensitivity by capturing any patent file that contains the keyword "quantum" and related quantum concepts (e.g., quantum bits, entanglement) to identify any patents broadly related to quantum (i.e., to establish a conservative upper limit of broadly defined quantum-related patents), and S2 and S3 optimize sensitivity by requiring keywords to be included in the title, abstract, or claims (TAC) of S2. or claims (TAC), in S3's claims only, and as part of a separate claim for S4 patents to optimize specificity.

 

The search achieves a high degree of specificity by further narrowing the search results to the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) categories established by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) for specific quantum inventions. This utilizes manual classification by patent experts at the USPTO and EPO to assign each patent application and granted patent to the relevant CPC category, effectively combining the results of the automated search algorithm with manual expert review.The CPC is an extension of the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) International Patent Classification (IPC) and is jointly administered by the USPTO and EPO to achieve coordination among patent offices and improve patent searching. The search strategy utilizes the CPC classification to classify patents according to broad quantum technology areas, including quantum devices (S5), quantum optics (S6), quantum information processing (S7), quantum computing (S8), quantum cryptography (S9), and quantum communications (S10).

 

 

U.S. (USPTO) and European (EPO) patents for quantum technologies. Source: USPTO and EPO data on patent applications and grants from 20010101 to 20211231 (searched by MA in 202218). CPC category G06N10/00 is dedicated to "quantum computing, i.e. information processing based on quantum mechanical phenomena". B82Y20/00 is dedicated to "Nanoptics, e.g. quantum optics"; B82Y10/00 is dedicated to "Nanotechnology for information processing, storage or transmission, e.g. quantum computing or single-electron logic", " Quantum computing or single-electron logic"; H04L9/0852 for "Quantum cryptography (transmission systems employing electromagnetic waves other than radio waves)"; H04B10 for "Transmission systems employing electromagnetic waves other than radio waves, such as infrared, visible or ultraviolet light, or employing electromagnetic waves other than radio waves. visible light or ultraviolet light, or using coronal radiation, such as quantum communication"; and H01L is "semiconductor devices; electric solid-state devices".

 

Table 1 shows the results of a search of patent applications and issued patents related to quantum technologies published in the USPTO and EPO over the past 20 years. The search strategy ranged from high sensitivity (S1) to high specificity (S2-S10) to reduce false positives. The results show that there are 236,642 quantum-related patent applications and 178,033 granted (S1) since 2001; that is, most of these patents are only broadly related to quantum technologies.

 

Searches S2-S10 narrowed the search and increased specificity to identify core quantum technology patents and categorize these patents by specific subfields of quantum technology. Ultimately, 20,581 granted patents were found where "quantum" was the core concept captured in the TAC of granted patents (S2); 18,696 of these patents included "quantum" as a restriction in at least one patent (S3) In 10,318 patents, the more important claims are for inventive concepts related to quanta (S4).

 

The results of S5-S10 show that most of these patents relate to quantum devices (n = 8965), followed by nanostructures/quantum optics (n = 3282), quantum information processing (n = 2057), quantum computing (n = 1603), quantum cryptography (n = 736), and quantum communication (n = 632).

 

02Annual Quantum Technology Patent Filing Activity, Legal Status

 

Figure 1 shows the annual quantum technology patent activity at the USPTO and EPO, and the corresponding legal status of the patent documents published in a given year. The graph shows

 

Quantum patents granted in a given year

Patent applications that were rejected/abandoned

Previously granted patents that expired in a given year

Validly granted patents (unexpired patents)

Pending patent applications.

 

Figure 1 Annual patent activity in quantum technologies at the USPTO and EPO (search number: S2) and legal status by date of publication of patent documents.

 

The results of the S2 search show an almost 10-fold increase in the number of patents granted annually for quantum technologies. only 161 patents were granted in 2001; for comparison, 1555 patents were granted by the USPTO and EPO in 2018, corresponding to an overall compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.23%. That said, the results also show a relatively low growth period (CAGR = 4.05%) from 2003 (n = 608) to 2013 (n = 904), with most of the growth occurring (1) between 2001 and 2003, as a result of R&D efforts and patent applications in the late 1990s, and (2) in the last 6 years (since 2014). Overall, active patent grants have increased from 111 in 2004 to 2,028 in 2021 (CAGR = 18.64%).

 

The relative ratio of granted applications to total applications (for years with a small number of pending applications) indicates a patent grant rate between 55% and 62%. Overall, 56.89% of applications filed in the last 20 years were granted (n = 19,571 patents) and 43.11% (n = 14,830) were rejected/abandoned. In addition, 22% (n = 4534) of granted patents have expired during this period. Thus, approximately 50% (n = 19,364) of all patents disclosed in the last 20 years have entered the public domain and are freely available to society.

 

1) Patent Classification: Breakdown by Technology

 

Table 2 Patents from the USPTO and EPO by CPC category (Search ID: S2)

 

Table 2 shows the top CPC categories, their descriptions, and the corresponding number of patents granted in these categories by the USPTO and EPO. The results show that the B82Y* category related to nanostructures and their applications (e.g. metrology) has the highest number of patents (n > 7000), followed by semiconductor devices (n = 1868) and quantum computing (n = 1603).

 

2) Quantum technology patent activity at the USPTO and EPO

 

Figure 2 Choice of patent offices for quantum technologies (USPTO vs. EPO).

 

Figure 2 shows the number of disclosures of quantum technology patent documents (i.e., published patent applications and granted patents) by patent office (USPTO vs. EPO). The results show that the USPTO has been the preferred patent office for the past 20 years. 63.2% of quantum technology patents (S2) were issued by the USPTO in 2001. By 2021, this percentage has increased to 78.8% of the joint EPO/USPTO patent cluster. Overall, the EPO is the preferred office for 22.04% of quantum technology patents (S2), while the USPTO accounts for 77.96%.

 

3) Patents with quantum technologies

 

Figure 3 Prevalence of patents broadly related to quantum technology (S1); core quantum patents (S2); patents with claims directed to quantum concepts (S3); patents with independent claims directed to quantum concepts (the broadest claims) (S4)

 

More than 90% of the patents using the keyword "quantum" in the title or abstract (S2) also have claims directed to the "quantum" inventive concept (S3). In addition, in more than 50% of the patents, the quantum inventive concept is claimed in the broadest claim of the patent (i.e., a stand-alone claim). Since 2020, more than 2,000 patent publications per year (S2), more than 1,800 patent publications per year contain claims directed to quantum concepts (S3), and more than 1,000 patents per year have broadest claims that include quantum features or limitations (S4).

 

The relative prevalence of quantum technology patents in the USPTO and EPO with claims relating to (a) quantum circuits, (b) quantum computing, (c) quantum communications, and (d) quantum algorithms.

 

In the past 20 years, patents including claim limitations related to quantum circuits (e.g., quantum and circuit*) were the most prevalent. from 2001 to 2013, claims related to quantum communications were the second most prevalent. However, starting in 2013, patents containing claims directed to quantum computing became more prevalent than patents on quantum communications. Patents containing claim limitations directed to quantum "algorithms" have been in the minority. Patent attorneys may have intentionally avoided using the "algorithm" limitation to overcome the subject matter eligibility limitations associated with patent ineligibility for "abstract concepts" (Bilsky and Alice). That said, since 2016, there has been a significant increase in patents that include the "quantum" and "algorithm" limitations in their claims.

 

Figure 5 shows a conceptual diagram of a quantum technology patent (S2). The graph was generated by automated text analysis of abstracts, titles and claims to identify commonly used terms and cluster them by category. The results show that the patents in S2 are focused on six areas, namely (1) quantum circuits, (2) quantum dot devices, (3) quantum computing, (4) quantum dot layers, (5) quantum states, and (6) quantum keys. The second layer includes additional details about the terms used to describe and claim the respective inventive concepts.

 

Figure 5 Conceptual diagram of quantum technology patents (search number: S2).

 

Figure 5 can be considered a summary of the titles, abstracts, and technical terms used in the claims of 20,581 granted patents (S2). That said, this information is highly compressed and it is not a substitute for a direct analysis of the actual claim language to examine the claim drafting strategy and scope of protection.

4) Recently Granted Quantum Computing Patents

 

Table 3 Names of 20 Recently Granted Quantum Computing Patents (S8)

 

Table 3 lists the titles and respective assignees of the 20 recently granted quantum computing patents (S8). These titles can be considered as short (≤500 characters) summaries of the claimed inventions, all of which were granted in December 2021, and help to illustrate the focus and subject scope of recent quantum computing patents.

 

5) Leading quantum computing patent holder

 

Table 4 Leading Patent Owners for Quantum Computing Patents (S8)

 

Table 4 lists the leading patent holders for quantum computing patents (S8) over the past 20 years. Among the top 10 holders of more than 25 quantum computing patents are U.S. global companies focused on hardware and software platforms (IBM, Microsoft, Google, Intel), a U.S. defense technology company (Northrop Grumman), a California venture capital ($200 million) company founded in 2013, a company providing scalable quantum processor technology based on superconducting chips ( Rigetti), Honeywell International, and the U.S. government. Among the non-U.S. companies, D-Wave Systems (Canada) focuses on quantum annealing computers and Toshiba (Japan). The leading university portfolios in quantum computing are MIT (USA), Oxford University (UK), Yale University (USA), Harvard University (USA), Caltech (USA), Stanford University (USA), University of Maryland and University of Wisconsin, and Delft University of Technology (Netherlands).

 

6) Citation analysis and dominant patent portfolio

 

Figure 6 Forward Citation Analysis of the Quantum Computing Patent Portfolio (S8)

 

Figure 6 shows the forward citation analysis of the Quantum Computing (S8) patent portfolio by assignee (ultimate patent owner). Positive citations are a measure of private value and a proxy for the potential social value of an invention. The patent portfolios with the highest number of positive citations are IBM, D-Wave, Northrop Grumman, and Microsoft. The top ranking university is MIT.

 

7) Global Geographic Distribution

 

Figure 7 Countries and regions with the largest number of quantum technology patents issued (Search ID: S2).

 

In Figure 7, the United States and China are the top issuing countries, followed by Japan, South Korea, the European Patent Office, Taiwan, China, Russia, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. While the U.S. continues to lead the field of quantum computing, China is arguably becoming a leader in quantum communications. This is remarkable, as most of China's growth in secure quantum communications has occurred in the past five years. As a result, Chinese quantum networks and communication devices are expected to appear on the global market soon. As of 2021, China is now in second place ahead of Japan, Europe and Australia (Figure 8).

 

Figure 8 Countries with the most quantum computing patent applications (CPC G08N10). As of 2021, China is currently in second place ahead of Japan, Europe and Australia.

 

03Trends and Summary

 

1) Continuous shift from classical to quantum technologies

 

Most of the quantum technology patents (S2) granted in the last 20 years are related to nanostructures and solid-state devices and their applications (e.g. sensing and metrology). The nature of the claims and claim drafting practices are virtually indistinguishable from those in semiconductor patents, which protect the types of inventions that have given rise to the computer and information technology revolution of the last 50 years. The number of transistors in dense integrated circuits (ICs) doubles approximately every two years (following Moore's Law). For example, the Intel 8008 processor introduced in 1974 contains 2,500 transistors using a MOS process of 10,000 nm, the Intel Pentium 4 of 2005 contains 169K transistors (90 nm), the Intel Xeon of 2017 contains 8 billion transistors (14 nm), and the Apple M1 Max of 2021 has 57 billion transistors (5 nanometers).

 

As a result, the building blocks of our classic processors now use MOS processes at the 5 nm scale. This miniaturization allows industry to increase the number of transistors in a chip (i.e., increase the computational power and functionality of an integrated circuit) and the speed, while reducing production costs. The consequence of this scaling is that classical devices used in "classical computers" exhibit quantum mechanical effects as part of the design and development of processors (CPUs) and graphics processing units (GPUs) for our current computing devices (e.g., cell phones, tablets, laptops, computers), in other words, quantum physical phenomena are becoming inevitable at the nanoscale. For example, at the deep submicron and nanoscale, MOSFETs exhibit quantum mechanical tunneling from source to gate oxide due to the thickness of the oxide layer (~2 nm), and from source to drain when the channel length is less than 10 nm, as well as energy quantization.

 

2) Owners of leading quantum computers

 

It is worth noting that a study of the leading patent owners shows that the concentration is not as high as we see in the classical computing and IT markets. In addition to well-known and well-capitalized companies (IBM, Microsoft, Alphabet, Toshiba, Intel, HP), our results show that universities, public entities, and new businesses are also the top assignees. Strong patent protection is more important for new entrants and quantitative SMEs (e.g., Rigetti, 1QB, D-Wave, MagicQ) than for large IT companies (e.g., IBM, Google, Microsoft, HP), semiconductor electronics and telecom companies (e.g., Intel, Toshiba, Hitachi, NEC, STMicroelectronics), or defense and security companies (e.g., Northrop Grumman, Raytheon). MagicQ) are more critical.

 

It is worth noting that, for example, D-Wave Systems (valued at $1.2 billion) holds more quantum computing patents than Google ($1.7 trillion market cap), Microsoft ($2.2 trillion market cap) or Intel ($220 billion market cap). existing well-capitalized companies such as IBM, Google, Microsoft and Intel can draw from their internal resources (e.g., strong balance sheets and extensive R&D budgets) to fund their quantum computing R&D, but new entrants must raise capital from outside investors based primarily on the strength of their intellectual property (given the deeply technical nature of the field and the limited prospects for short-term revenues or profits).

 

As an illustrative example, Rigetti, a new entrant founded in 2013, currently has about 130 employees and one of the top ten patent portfolios in quantum computing (ahead of Toshiba, Intel and HP), which has enabled them to raise a total investment of $200 million and recently announced plans for a public listing on the New York Stock Exchange valued at about $1.5 billion.

 

3) Quantum technology and market competition

 

Against this backdrop, several initiatives could conceivably help address potential issues related to fair competition, knowledge sharing, reduced market dynamics, and market entrant barriers.

 

First, the European Commission has recently proposed a Digital Services Act (DSA) package as part of a Europe-wide digital strategy. the DSA aims to ensure that existing dominant market players can be challenged by new quantum startups and established competitors, so that the single market remains competitive and open to new ideas and innovations and consumers have a choice. the DSA will also apply to technology areas of quantum and artificial intelligence. Second, in the United States, the essential facilities principle could be used to open up and revitalize the quantum computing ecosystem by granting access to facilities for which there is no realistic alternative in the marketplace. Third, the introduction of pro-quantum antitrust enforcement mechanisms under the proposed law safeguards the emerging quantum market from dominant incumbents using their market power to distort the development of the quantum computing field.

 

4) Government-Funded Quantum Innovation Programs

 

Quantum technology is becoming a major competitive factor in the global "power game," as is evident not only when analyzing the pull mechanisms associated with intellectual property, but also when looking at recent promotional initiatives and investments. According to a Quantum Resources and Careers (QURECA) report, governments have invested more than $25 billion in quantum computing research by mid-2021. Other reports say that by September 2021, more than $1 billion in venture capital had entered the industry, more than the previous three years combined.

 

To keep up with the increasing investment in quantum technology regions such as the United States, China and India, one of Europe's most important initiatives, and the main facilitator and coordinator of the drive for incentives, is the European Commission's flagship initiative on quantum technology. It has the full support of EU member states and starts in 2018 with a total budget of €1 billion. The so-called "first quantum revolution" is related to "the discovery of the rules of the quantum field, which led to the invention of tools such as lasers and transistors", and the goal of the initiative is to support Europe's participation in what is known as the "second quantum revolution The goal of the initiative is to support Europe's participation in the fierce competition known as the "second quantum revolution.

 

This includes the development of potentially life-changing technologies that could have a huge impact on the market. Therefore, the initiative focuses on promoting systems that are fairly close to market maturity, such as quantum communication networks, ultra-sensitive cameras and quantum simulators, which can support the creation and design of new or improved materials. In addition, the initiative aims to support less mature technologies with high market potential, such as general-purpose quantum computers and high-precision sensors that can be used in cell phones.

 

Importantly, investments by EU member states are increasing, sometimes exceeding those of the EU. For example, in May 2021, Germany announced that it would invest €2 billion in quantum computing and related technologies over five years, a plan under which almost all other countries are dwarfed, with the Ministry of Education and Research committing €1.1 billion to R&D by 2025 and the Ministry of the Economy contributing €878 million to develop applications. Even smaller EU member states, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, are investing heavily in quantum technologies, for example by establishing and funding new innovation centers and public-private partnerships focused on quantum technologies. Meanwhile, in the UK, the government has invested £270 million in 2013 to establish the UK National Quantum Technology Programme and in 2014 developed a Quantum Roadmap to invest over £1 billion in the field.

 

5) Quantum Patents and Business Development

 

While the patent system is now encouraging public disclosure, trade secrets may be a more desirable IP option in this technology area for the following reasons.

 

The early stage nature of many of these technologies

The market structure

The potential business model

 

Similar to the pharmaceutical industry, most R&D in quantum technologies is capital intensive and high risk. In the pharmaceutical industry, patent rights are a key incentive because new drugs are expensive to develop, but once the ingredients are known, it is much cheaper to create a substantially equivalent generic, especially for small molecule compounds. In the pharmaceutical field, the asymmetry between the investment required for innovation (i.e., creating a new drug that is safe and effective) and imitation (i.e., creating an essentially equivalent generic) is very large. However, while most quantum technologies require the same expensive R&D as the pharmaceutical industry, quantum technology products are generally more difficult to reverse engineer (i.e., imitation is also expensive). What's more, even without quantum intellectual property, or in cases where quantum patents would be abandoned, pledged or nationalized, recreating complex machines such as quantum computers would require significant high-tech facilities, monetary resources and know-how, especially clean rooms, high-quality production lines, supply chains and an experienced and skilled workforce.

 

Some quantum technologies, such as quantum computing hardware, are likely to be centralized in physically secure facilities, with customers accessing them through the cloud, with permissions determined by quantum computing service providers through role-based access controls. Thus, because the product is not "public" like pharmaceuticals, it is much easier to protect it through trade secrets. The expected business model for quantum computing is likely to be similar to the cloud-based models currently dominated by Amazon/AWS (33%), Microsoft Azure (21%), Google Could (10%), Alibaba Cloud (6%) and IBM Cloud (4%).

 

However, when new entrants in quantum computing (e.g. D-Wave, Rigetti) start disclosing their inventions and obtaining patent protection, this poses a competitive risk to the incumbents, as these specialized new entrants may

 

Obtain more valuable patents (i.e., broader protection)

Obtain more valuable patents (i.e., broader protection) in the early stages of the field because patent examiners can use a limited number of inventions to limit the scope of proposed claims based on novelty, inventiveness (non-obviousness), and adequacy of disclosure (i.e., written description, enablement, and others)

Use patent portfolios and other intellectual property to raise capital from venture and growth capital to develop specialized quantum technology commercial solutions that pose a threat of disruptive innovation to current technology practitioners.

 

As a result, incumbents who prefer to keep their key inventions as trade secrets rather than pursue patent protection (particularly those who expect a return on investment from commercial exploitation within the next 10 to 20 years) are also encouraged to disclose their inventions through the patent system at this early stage. These incentives are generally more beneficial to society by promoting innovation than trade secrets because everyone benefits from public disclosure and all patents eventually become part of the public domain (i.e., within 20 years of the priority date).

 

Original report：

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-022-01209-3