Patent Protection for Quantum Computing Innovations in India

Quantum technology has its foundation in quantum mechanics, a field of physics that examines the behaviour of matter and energy at extremely small, atomic and subatomic scales. Unlike classical systems, which are bound by binary states, quantum systems exploit properties such as superposition, where a particle can exist in multiple states at the same time, and entanglement, where particles share correlations that defy classical explanations. These properties allow quantum systems to achieve levels of computation and communication far beyond conventional technologies.

The quantum domain covers several interlinked areas. Quantum computing aims to design machines that rely on qubits rather than classical bits, enabling them to solve problems in optimization, cryptography, and simulation that would be nearly impossible for classical computers. Quantum communication leverages principles like entanglement and the no-cloning theorem to ensure secure information transfer, with quantum key distribution standing out as a key application. Closely connected is quantum cryptography, which uses these properties to create encryption systems that remain secure even in the face of quantum level threats.

Beyond these, quantum sensing and metrology employ quantum phenomena to deliver ultra-precise measurements in navigation, medical diagnostics, and geophysical exploration. At the hardware level, advances in quantum materials and devices are making possible scalable qubits, superconducting circuits, ion traps, and photonic systems. Together, these fields form the wider quantum technology ecosystem, with quantum computing attracting the greatest global attention due to its transformative potential across industries.

Regarding patentability in India, an invention must satisfy three key criteria: novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. Applications must also provide clear disclosure so that a skilled person can understand and implement the invention without undue experimentation. For quantum-related inventions, the main hurdle lies in Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which excludes “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms” from patentability. Since many quantum breakthroughs are rooted in algorithms and qubit manipulations, patent applications must show practical implementation and technical effect to qualify.

Section 3(k) and Its Implications for Quantum Inventions

Section 3(k) reflects the Act’s intent to keep abstract methods outside the ambit of patents. The term “per se” clarifies that while a computer program as such is not patentable, inventions using programs to deliver a technical effect or solve a technical problem may still qualify.

Quantum computing operates at the intersection of mathematics, physics, and computer science, leveraging phenomena such as superposition and entanglement to achieve computations infeasible for classical machines. Algorithmic advances like Shor’s algorithm or Grover’s algorithm, in isolation, remain excluded. However, when linked to specific hardware architectures, error-correction mechanisms, or communication protocols, such inventions demonstrate technical effect and can be patentable. The applicant’s challenge is to present innovations as practical systems with measurable technical contributions.

The CRI Guidelines 2025 and Quantum Technologies

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks has issued the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (2025). These explicitly include quantum computing, quantum communication, and quantum cryptography, aligning with initiatives such as the National Quantum Mission and recognizing their growing importance in India’s innovation ecosystem.

The Guidelines emphasize that an algorithm or program or mathematical formula or atheoretical concept such as quantum computing/mechanics principle alone does not determine patentability. Instead, when a quantum computing innovation transforms such abstract principles into a real-world, tangible application, such as a method for optimizing logistics using quantum algorithms or a specific hardware configuration for qubit control, it may become patentable. The focus is on whether the invention delivers a technical effect or technical contribution, such as improvements in speed, reliability, security, or efficiency. In this sense, the Guidelines bridge abstract quantum theories with their practical implementations that solve real-world problems, thus patentable.

In particular, applicants are expected to disclose how qubits, gates, or circuits are configured to achieve technical results, how hardware and software are integrated, especially in hybrid quantum-classical settings, and how practical applications such as cryptographic key distribution or molecular simulations are realized. Concrete benefits like reduced error rates, scalability, or faster processing times must be clearly described. The emphasis lies in showing how technical implementation translates into tangible results.

Examples of Patentable Quantum Innovations

The patentability framework is best illustrated with examples. A new error-correcting code, described only in abstract terms, may not qualify. Yet, when implemented in a specific circuit architecture that enables stable operation of a quantum processor, it demonstrates technical effect and becomes patentable.

In quantum key distribution, claiming the broad idea of secure key sharing through quantum mechanics would be excluded. However, a system specifying photon transmission hardware, detection protocols, and error reconciliation methods may cross into patentable subject matter.

Another example is hybrid architectures, where quantum processors handle optimization while classical processors manage pre and post processing. Such systems can qualify if the application demonstrates how integration improves overall efficiency.

The CRI Guidelines 2025 also clarify how quantum-related inventions may be assessed for patentability by providing non-exhaustive illustrative examples. These illustrations demonstrate that inventions which might appear abstract at first glance can, when disclosed with sufficient technical detail and linked to measurable performance improvements, be taken out of the purview of exclusion under Section 3(k).

Consider an example, a hybrid quantum-classical computing system designed to perform dynamic optimization on a superconducting qubit-based processor. The system integrates a quantum processing unit fabricated from high-coherence transmon qubits built on niobium–titanium alloy with sapphire substrates, a classical control unit embedding machine learning algorithms for real-time calibration and error mitigation, and a compiler that translates high-level quantum programming languages into low-level pulse sequences adapted to the qubit topology and noise profile. To ensure stability, the processor is maintained at cryogenic temperatures of 10–15 milli-kelvin, shielded from environmental interference, and synchronized with classical post-processing steps to optimize hybrid performance.

For sufficiency of disclosure, the applicant must provide details of the material composition and dimensions of the transmon qubits, the architecture of the classical control unit and its feedback protocols, and the manner in which the compiler generates qubit-specific pulse sequences with defined error margins. Specifications of the cryogenic environment and shielding mechanisms, supported by block-level diagrams showing the integration of the various modules, are also required. Patentability is supported here because the invention demonstrates adaptive gate-level adjustments enabled by machine learning during execution, thereby improving fidelity and minimizing incoherence in real time. This establishes a concrete technical effect and moves the subject matter outside the exclusion of Section 3(k), as expressly recognized in the CRI Guidelines 2025.

Consider another example, a chip-based photonic quantum computing device that implements linear optical quantum computing (LOQC) protocols on a CMOS-compatible platform. The silicon photonic chip integrates waveguides, beam splitters, and phase shifters fabricated using semiconductor processes, alongside embedded single-photon sources such as quantum dots to generate qubits. Thermo-optic tuning elements permit dynamic reconfiguration of waveguide paths, superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors provide efficient on-chip detection, and optical delay lines with feedback mechanisms enable multi-qubit interference experiments fundamental to scalable LOQC.

To satisfy sufficiency of disclosure, the specification must set out the chip layout with precise waveguide geometry, materials, and fabrication steps, as well as the control logic necessary to implement universal gate operations. Experimental data on insertion loss, extinction ratios, and phase tuning responses should be included, together with worked examples of LOQC execution supported by timing diagrams and expected output distributions. The invention is patentable based on the fact that the invention discloses a reconfigurable, CMOS-compatible photonic platform capable of high-speed, low-noise operations. By demonstrating enhanced gate fidelity, scalability, and resistance to thermal decoherence, the invention provides a clear technical effect, thereby qualifying for protection in line with the approach laid down in the CRI Guidelines 2025.

Jurisprudential Guidance

While no Indian court has yet decided a case specifically on quantum computing, jurisprudence on CRIs offers valuable guidance. In Ferid Allani v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court stressed that inventions should be assessed on technical effect and contribution rather than dismissed merely for involving a program. In Raytheon Company v. Controller of Patents, the Court clarified that requiring “novel hardware” as a precondition was incorrect, and the true focus must be on the technical solution achieved. These principles are directly applicable to quantum inventions, where system level improvements and problem-solving approaches merit recognition under the patent framework.

Conclusion

Quantum computing has the potential to transform industries ranging from cryptography and finance to logistics and healthcare. The CRI Guidelines 2025 represent a progressive step in aligning India’s patent regime with emerging technologies. While Section 3(k) continues to exclude abstract quantum algorithms and programs per se, applicants who demonstrate practical or real-world implementation, measurable technical effect, and concrete system level advantages can secure meaningful protection.

Precision in drafting, strong claims, and detailed disclosures are essential to establish patentability of the invention. With careful framing and adherence to both statutory provisions and judicial principles, India is well positioned to support innovation in quantum technologies while maintaining balance in its patent system.

Gaurav Chhibber

Partner and Patent Attorney

gaurav@iprattorneys.com

Madhav Arora

Patent Associate

madhav.a@iprattorneys.com