From Technical Effect to Assertable Quantum Software Positions: A Proposed Strategic IP Approach – with Sebastian Greding

1 . Background and Central IP Question

The Decision Case concerns a young quantum technology company that makes existing quantum hardware usable for industrial applications.

Its commercial advantage arises from a combination of:

• problem-specific algorithms,
• hardware-adapted implementation,
• workflow integration,
• performance tuning, and
• know-how gained through collaboration with industrial customers.

The IP-relevant value creation is therefore distributed across several technical layers. Algorithmic methods, technical implementation, hardware adaptation and industrial integration can each make distinct contributions to the competitive advantage.

The original Kipu Quantum Decision Case therefore poses a comprehensive IP management question: Which elements should be patented, which should be kept confidential, and which should be secured through contracts, software control or the company’s position in the ecosystem?

👉 How Should Quantum Software Companies Build Their IP Strategy? Important industry topic with Dr. Daniel Volz

The proposed solution presented here focuses on one specific aspect:

How can patentable elements of the quantum software architecture be selected and designed so that they create commercially relevant IP positions that can later be put to practical use?

2 . Proposed Solution: Design for Enforceability

The central premise is:

A strategically useful patent position connects technical effect, business relevance and enforceability.

For quantum software, this yields three interconnected perspectives.

• Technical Contribution
  Which defensible technical contribution should be protected?
  The decisive question is where, within the value creation process, a technical contribution arises that can be clearly described and distinguished from known solutions.

• Business Relevance
  Which commercial differentiation depends on this technical contribution?
  A technically compelling solution gains particular strategic importance when, for example, it improves performance, enables more flexible use of hardware, supports scaling, facilitates customer integration or constitutes an element of the offering that is difficult to substitute.

• Enforceability
  How can a competitor’s subsequent use of this patent position be detected, proven and converted into commercial leverage?
  This third perspective is particularly important for software-based technologies, because many technical processes within a system have only limited external visibility.

The strongest patent positions arise where these three dimensions overlap:

Technical Contribution × Business Relevance × Enforceability

A strategic patent decision therefore begins during IP harvesting with the question:

Which technical development can be translated into a patent position that is relevant to the company’s future competitive position?

👉  Making Quantum IP Legible

3 . From Technical Effect to a Commercially Actionable Patent Position

Quantum algorithms may be heavily mathematical or algorithmic in nature. For patent strategy, the decisive question is therefore where a technical effect arises within the specific implementation. For Kipu, the following areas may be relevant, for example:

• adapting a method to specific hardware characteristics,
• technical resource management,
• more efficient use of limited quantum resources,
• coordination of classical and quantum-based processing,
• technically relevant data processing,
• hybrid system architectures,
• control of technical systems, and
• technical integration into industrial processes.

Hardware-adapted implementation may be especially relevant. Specific technical decisions make an algorithm executable on a real quantum architecture and commercially deployable. The technical effect should therefore be identified during IP harvesting and connected to its commercial significance.

A Three-Gate Test can be applied to every potential patent position:

These three questions help concentrate patent resources on positions that combine technical and commercial significance. Established IP management approaches are now available for systematically connecting technology development, the business roadmap and IP positions:

👉 IP Roadmapping with the SAILS Methodology – IPBA® Connect

4 . Detectability as Part of Patent Strategy

Especially in software, the visibility of a technical solution affects the commercial value of a patent position. A competitor may, for example, use a protected technical teaching within an internal software process. The patent proprietor must then determine which features of that use can actually be observed in the market. Accordingly, the assessment of a potential patent position should include this question from the outset:

What would infringement look like from the outside?

Kipu’s value creation elements present different situations:

This makes detectability a design parameter of patent strategy. This perspective also shapes the claim architecture. Three levels can be considered for strategically important positions:

• Observable Effect
  What technically observable effect does the solution produce?

• Technical Mechanism
  Which technical mechanism causes this effect?

• Implementation Variants
  Which different implementations can realise the same technical core?

Connecting these levels enables a patent position that combines technical substance, commercial relevance and future enforceability in practice.

5 . Drafting and Portfolio Design for Future Competition

Strategically important inventions benefit from an additional change in perspective. Before filing, the planned patent position is subjected to several future-oriented stress tests.

• Validity
  Which aspects of the position could a technically sophisticated competitor attack?This concerns the sufficiency of the disclosure, the technical effect, relevant fallback positions and distinction from the prior art.

• Design-around
  Which alternative technical routes could deliver the same customer benefit?This helps identify variants and technical alternatives early.

• Infringement
  Which features would later need to be proven in a competing product?This examines how relevant claim features may manifest in the product, system behaviour, interfaces, documentation or other evidence.

This leads to a useful principle:

Draft with grant, validity, design-around and infringement in mind.

This perspective also affects the portfolio architecture.

Patent families can be distinguished according to their strategic function:

• Core Position
  Protects an essential technical differentiator.

• Interface Position
  Protects important interfaces with hardware, customers or other system components.

• Observable Position
  Addresses technical features whose use can be readily detected in the market.

• Design-Around Barrier
  Reinforces an important technical control point through alternative technical implementations.

• Negotiation Position
  Supports negotiations with partners, platform operators, investors or competitors.

Each relevant patent family thus receives a clearly defined function within the business model.

This perspective is particularly relevant in the quantum market. Hardware architectures, applications, technical interfaces and collaboration structures are evolving rapidly. Patent strategy should therefore be closely connected to the technology roadmap, business model, partnerships and future competitive positions. The following provides an overview of this dynamic quantum IP landscape:

👉  Quantum Technologies in Motion: Why IP Becomes a Decision System Before the Market Is Fully Defined

6 . Enforcement-Ready IP Harvesting

The perspective described above begins at the invention disclosure stage. In addition to conventional questions about inventors, novelty and the technical description, IP harvesting can include the following questions:

• What technical effect does the solution produce?
• Which commercial differentiation depends on it?
• Where does this effect manifest itself in the product or workflow?
• Which technical alternative or design-around could a competitor choose?
• Which features would be externally visible?
• Which design-arounds are foreseeable?
• How long is the position expected to remain commercially relevant?
• Which complementary protection mechanisms should be considered?

The individual invention disclosure thereby becomes an input for a strategic portfolio decision. The central management question is:

Which future competitive position do we want to create with this technical development?

This also enables the patent portfolio to be presented differently to management and investors. For each important patent family, it becomes possible to explain:

• which technical differentiation it addresses,
• which commercially valuable element it protects,
• how relevant the position is to competitors,
• how readily its use can be observed, and
• which strategic function it performs within the portfolio.

This transforms a list of IP rights into a map of future positions for action and control.

This transition from patent metrics to strategic steering and management control is now part of an established IP management discourse:

👉 IP Management Control Systems in Quantum Technology

Conclusion

The proposed strategy is: Design for Enforceability.

For a quantum software company, a strategic patent decision connects three questions:

1 . Is there a defensible technical contribution?
2 . Does it protect something that matters to the business?
3 . Can we detect, prove and act against competitive use of that position?

The strongest patent positions arise at the intersection of: technical effect, commercial relevance and enforceability.

For Kipu, this means assessing quantum software innovations against these three dimensions from the IP harvesting stage onward. Technical effects are connected to commercial value creation. For important positions, detectability, design-arounds, validity and subsequent enforcement are considered from the early drafting stage. Each patent family then receives a defined strategic function within the portfolio architecture.

The central question is therefore:

“Which quantum software innovations can we turn into patent positions that competitors have to take into account in the market?”

Expert Profile: Sebastian Greding

Sebastian Greding is a German and European patent attorney, a representative before the Unified Patent Court and head of Berggren’s Munich office. He has worked in intellectual property since 2014.

His technical background combines engineering with technology-intensive fields of digital innovation. His practice focuses in particular on computer-implemented inventions, software, machine learning and AI, quantum technology and electronics.

For the Kipu Quantum Decision Case, it is particularly relevant that his public profile combines patent prosecution with opposition, appeal and litigation. This gives him experience across different stages of the patent lifecycle.

He also works on the patenting of computer-implemented inventions, AI and quantum computing before the European Patent Office. In his professional communications, he connects technological understanding with the business case and corporate strategy.

This combination leads to a solution approach that assesses, during the patent drafting process, which technical position can be commercially relevant, resilient in the face of challenges and practically enforceable in the market at a later stage.

Proposed Solution for the Kipu Quantum Decision Case:

Design for Enforceability

Building quantum-software patent positions where technical effect, business relevance and enforceability overlap.

Sebastian Greding heads Berggren‘s Munich office and works in ICT, AI & Quantum Technology.