Quantum Computing Patents India
Quantum Computing Patents in India
Legal Framework and Case Law Analysis
1. Statutory Framework Governing Quantum Computing Patents in India
Quantum computing inventions are examined under the Patents Act, 1970, primarily through:
Section 2(1)(j)
Defines a patentable invention as:
Novel
Involves an inventive step
Capable of industrial application
Section 3(k) – The Major Barrier
“A mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms” are not inventions.
Quantum computing involves:
Quantum algorithms
Mathematical models
Software controlling qubits
Specialized quantum hardware
Hence, pure quantum algorithms are not patentable, but quantum computing systems, architectures, control mechanisms, and hardware-software combinations may be patentable.
2. Patentability of Quantum Computing: Core Principles from Indian Jurisprudence
From Indian case law, the following principles emerge:
Algorithm alone → Not patentable
Software per se → Not patentable
Technical contribution → Patentable
Hardware + software synergy → Patentable
Real-world technical effect → Critical
Quantum computing inventions must therefore demonstrate:
Control of physical qubits
Error correction mechanisms
Hardware-level improvements
Measurable technical advancement
3. Key Indian Case Laws (Detailed Analysis)
Case 1: Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1979)
Issue
What constitutes an inventive step under Indian patent law?
Court’s Reasoning
Mere workshop improvement is not enough
Invention must display technical ingenuity
Must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art
Relevance to Quantum Computing
Incremental improvements to known quantum algorithms without technical ingenuity will fail
Novel qubit architectures or error-correction techniques may qualify
Principle Established
Inventive step requires real technical advancement, not academic novelty
Case 2: Ericsson v. Intex Technologies (Delhi High Court, 2015)
Issue
Patentability of software-based inventions related to telecommunications
Court’s Findings
Software embedded in hardware is patentable
Focus should be on technical effect, not form
A computer program that enhances system performance is patentable
Relevance to Quantum Computing
Quantum control software operating quantum hardware can be patented
Claims must emphasize:
Improved qubit stability
Reduced decoherence
Faster quantum gate operations
Principle Established
Software producing a technical effect beyond computation is patentable
Case 3: Ferid Allani v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2019)
Issue
Interpretation of Section 3(k) in modern technology
Court’s Observations
Patent law must evolve with technological developments
Inventions should not be rejected merely for involving software
If invention demonstrates technical contribution, it is patentable
Landmark Holding
“The bar on patenting computer programs per se cannot be applied rigidly.”
Relevance to Quantum Computing
Quantum inventions cannot be rejected merely as “algorithms”
Quantum error correction, qubit manipulation systems, and quantum measurement techniques can be patentable
Principle Established
Substance over form in assessing patentability
Case 4: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International (Delhi HC, 2016)
Issue
Validity of Standard Essential Patents involving software
Court’s Reasoning
Claims must be read as a whole
Even if algorithmic, technical implementation matters
Hardware-software interaction qualifies as invention
Relevance to Quantum Computing
Quantum communication protocols embedded in physical systems may be patented
Quantum networking standards could be protected if tied to hardware
Principle Established
Integrated technical systems are patentable even if they involve algorithms
Case 5: Yahoo Inc. v. Assistant Controller of Patents (IPAB, 2011)
Issue
Patentability of software-based methods
Decision
Pure software/business methods are excluded
No technical effect shown beyond computation
Relevance to Quantum Computing
Quantum algorithms alone (e.g., Shor’s Algorithm) are not patentable
Must show practical, technical application
Principle Established
Abstract computational logic is not patentable
Case 6: OpenTV Inc. v. Controller of Patents (IPAB, 2017)
Issue
Whether a computer-implemented invention is patentable
Findings
Invention was rejected as it lacked technical effect
Mere automation of known processes is insufficient
Relevance to Quantum Computing
Automating classical computations using quantum logic without technical novelty will fail
Must demonstrate quantum-specific technical improvement
Principle Established
Technical effect must be demonstrated in the claims
Case 7: Microsoft Technology Licensing v. Assistant Controller (Delhi HC, 2024)
Issue
Examination standards for software patents
Court’s Observations
Patent Office must examine claims holistically
Rejection under Section 3(k) must be reasoned
Technical advancement must be properly assessed
Relevance to Quantum Computing
Patent Office cannot reject quantum inventions casually
Claims explaining physical qubit interaction deserve examination
Principle Established
Detailed technical analysis is mandatory before rejection
4. What Quantum Computing Inventions Are Patentable in India?
Patentable
✔ Quantum hardware architectures
✔ Qubit control systems
✔ Error correction mechanisms
✔ Cryogenic quantum processors
✔ Hybrid classical-quantum systems
Not Patentable
✘ Pure quantum algorithms
✘ Mathematical models
✘ Theoretical quantum gates
✘ Abstract simulations
5. Drafting Strategy for Quantum Computing Patents in India
To overcome Section 3(k):
Emphasize physical components
Show technical effect
Avoid “algorithm” language
Highlight industrial application
Include hardware flow diagrams
6. Conclusion
Indian patent law does not prohibit quantum computing patents, but it filters out abstract science.
Based on case law:
Pure quantum theory is not patentable
Applied quantum technology is patentable
Courts adopt a technology-friendly, purposive interpretation
Quantum computing patents in India must be positioned as engineering innovations, not scientific discoveries.
RELATED Blog
comments