On 27 March 2026 Xanadu Quantum Technologies Limited (Xanadu) publicly listed on both Nasdaq and Toronto Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol XNDU. This follows the completion of its previously announced business combination with Crane Harbor Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company.

According to the announcement this transaction provided Xanadu with approximately US$ 302 million in gross proceeds, alongside negotiations for up to C$390 million in potential funding from the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario, to support continued technology development, expand manufacturing capabilities, and accelerate the commercialization of its photonic quantum computing platform.

Following the public listing, Xanadu will focus on scaling its technology platform and advancing toward quantum computing applications that are useful and available to people everywhere.

Who are Xanadu

Xanadu is a Canadian quantum computing company with the mission to build quantum computers that are useful and available to people everywhere. Founded in 2016, Xanadu provides quantum hardware and software. The Company also leads the development of PennyLane, an open-source software library for quantum computing and application development.

The following analysis looks inside Xanadu's patent portfolio to better understand what the company has sought IP protection on, and which markets they seek to commercialise their technology in.

Xanadu's patent portfolio has grown steadily since the company was founded

Since 2019 Xanadu has published 104 patent applications and received 32 granted patents across 50 patent families.

Both new patent applications and grant patents have grown steadily year-on-year.

Xanadu is building an international patent portfolio, from a US foundation

Xanadu's 50 patent families have been filed across multiple jurisdictions. The US and Europe are clearly the main market for commercialisation, with 44 US patent applications and 30 in Europe. Beyond there these two regions there are patent applications in Canada (16), Australia (3), China (3), and Japan (2).

Granted patents are growing, and at the moment the majority are US granted patents. There are clear signs that this is being extended beyond the US, with granted patents being awarded in Europe, Canada, China and Japan.

As more international patent applications make their way through the examination process more of them will be granted outside the US - strengthening their international competitive position.

Note: WO are essentially placeholding, so technically not a country.

Xanadu's innovation pipeline is growing

Xanadu's patenting activity has been steadily growing since 2017 when the first patent applications were filed. Forty-three percent were filed within the past five years.

Xanadu's granted patents are predominantly US granted patents

Xanadu's granted patents are largely based on inventions filed between 2017 and 2021 - accounting for 28 of the 32 granted patents. Forty-seven percent of Xanadu's granted patents, 15 granted patents, were filed in 2019, and 12 were US granted patents. Overall, US granted patents account for 22 of the 32 granted patents.

Xanadu's patent portfolio contains 50 patent families

Most of the 50 patent families have fewer than four members, to be exact 42 patent families have three or fewer members. Just eight patent families have four or more members. The top three patent families have 10 or more members - these three families account for 36 patent applications and granted patents.

This is Xanadu's earliest patent family

Methods and Apparatus for Producing Highly Tunable Squeezed Light
- 7 members, priority 2017

• An apparatus for producing squeezed light includes a substrate and a first beam splitter integrated onto the substrate. The apparatus also includes a Mach-Zehnder interferometer integrated onto the substrate. The Mach-Zehnder interferometer has a first input coupled to a first output of the first beam splitter and a first output coupled to a second output of the first beam splitter. The apparatus also includes a waveguide integrated onto the substrate and connecting a second input of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer to a second output of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The waveguide and the Mach-Zehnder interferometer form a ring resonator. The ring resonator can also be replaced by a waveguide section, including, for example, a spiral waveguide.
• see US2019056632A1

These are Xanadu's three largest patent families

Systems and Methods for Nonlinear Optical Light Generation Using Linearly Uncoupled Resonators in Integrated Photonic Devices
- 10 members, priority 2018

• A photonic device comprises a plurality of resonators and a plurality of optical channels. Each resonator from the plurality of resonators has a set of resonance frequencies independently selected from a set of resonance frequencies of each remaining resonator from the plurality of resonators. Each resonator from the plurality of resonators lacks substantially any linear coupling between each remaining resonator from the plurality of resonators. The plurality of resonators defines a spatial overlap region between at least two resonators from the plurality of resonators such that nonlinear optical processes are substantially optimized during operation. A plurality of optical channels is operatively coupled to the plurality of resonators. The plurality of optical channels is configured to receive light from the plurality resonators and configured to send light into the plurality of resonators.
• see US2021080804A1

Apparatus and Methods for Gaussian Boson Sampling
- 13 members, priority 2019

• An apparatus includes a light source to provide a plurality of input optical modes in a squeezed state. The apparatus also includes a network of interconnected reconfigurable beam splitters (RBSs) configured to perform a unitary transformation of the plurality of input optical modes to generate a plurality of output optical modes. An array of photon counting detectors is in optical communication with the network of interconnected RBSs and configured to measure the number of photons in each mode of the plurality of the output optical modes after the unitary transformation. The apparatus also includes a controller operatively coupled to the light source and the network of interconnected RBSs. The controller is configured to control at least one of the squeezing factor of the squeezed state of light, the angle of the unitary transformation, or the phase of the unitary transformation.
• see WO2020232546A1

Scalable Photonic Quantum Computing with Hybrid Resource States
- 13 members, priority 2020

• A system for scalable, fault-tolerant photonic quantum computing includes multiple optical circuits, multiple photon number resolving detectors (PNRs), a multiplexer, and an integrated circuit (IC). During operation, the optical circuits generate output states via Gaussian Boson sampling (GBS), and the PNRs generate qubit clusters based on the output states. The multiplexer multiplexes the qubit clusters and replaces empty modes with squeezed vacuum states, to generate multiple hybrid resource states. The IC stitches together the hybrid resource states into a higher-dimensional cluster state that includes states for fault-tolerant quantum computation.
• see US2022101168A1

Xanadu's patent portfolio reads like a roadmap to fault tolerant computing

Starting with core photonic hardware in 2017, Xanadu has systematically built up through algorithms, system architecture, and error correction to recently arriving at fault-tolerant quantum computing.

• Photonic Hardware Foundations (2017–2018)
• Quantum Computing Algorithms & Architectures (2019)
• Scalable System Design (2020)
• Platform Tools & Characterisation (2021)
• Components, Error Correction & Compilation (2022)
• Applications & Error Correction (2023)
• Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing (2024–2025)

Taken together, this portfolio traces a deliberate and sustained journey — from photonic hardware fundamentals through to fault-tolerant quantum computing — built systematically since the filing of the first patent, and showing no signs of slowing.

Sources

Company website: https://www.xanadu.ai/

Xanadu Becomes First Pure-Play Photonic Quantum Computing Company to Go Public, March 27, 2026
https://www.xanadu.ai/press/xanadu-becomes-first-pure-play-photonic-quantum-computing-company-to-go-public

Xanadu 2026 Analyst Day presentation
https://investors.xanadu.ai/static-files/83d5ba9b-cc72-435b-9b32-2a710eb97cd7

Abbott and Exact Sciences confirm acquisition deal

On 20th November 2025, Abbott and Exact Sciences announced a definitive agreement for Abbott to acquire Exact Sciences.

Exact Sciences shareholders will receive US$ 105 per common share, valuing the deal at approximately US$ 21 billion.

• Abbott says Exact Sciences brings unrivalled and complementary strengths

"Exact Sciences' innovation, its strong brand and customer-focused execution are unrivalled in the cancer diagnostics space, and its presence and strengths are complementary to our own."

Robert B. Ford, chairman and chief executive officer, Abbott.

• Exact Sciences says Abbott brings greater market access

"Together with Abbott, we can reach more patients, advance earlier detection, and deliver answers that change lives. Abbott's culture of innovation and global commercial reach will help accelerate our mission of eradicating cancer and expanding access to our tests worldwide, while delivering immediate and substantial value to our shareholders."

Kevin Conroy, chairman and chief executive officer, Exact Sciences.

This analysis looks inside Exact Sciences’ patent portfolio to better understand the assets Abbott is paying US$21 billion for.

Exact Sciences is focused on cancer screening and precision oncology diagnostics

Exact Sciences specialises in cancer screening and precision oncology, supporting patients before, during and after diagnosis. Its portfolio includes stool-based and liquid-biopsy tests (including blood-based assays), molecular residual disease (MRD) monitoring, and tools for treatment guidance and therapy selection.

Exact Sciences' patent portfolio shows continued growth in terms of publications

Since 2009 Exact Sciences has published 663 patent applications and received 261 granted patents across 87 patent families.

Both new filings and granted patents have increased steadily year over year, showing a clear pattern of ongoing portfolio expansion.

Their patent portfolio is international, with a strong focus on US and EP markets

Exact Sciences files patents across multiple jurisdictions, with the United States and Europe (EP) representing the two largest markets. Together, they account for 47% of all published patent applications, indicating that these regions are central to the company’s IP activity and commercial focus.

Note: WO are essentially placeholding, so technically not a country.

Their invention pipeline has been growing, but recently is showing signs of slowing

Exact Sciences’ patenting activity has historically been strong. Filing 663 patent applications since 2009. Between 2010 and 2020, the company filed around 50 patent applications per year, reflecting a consistently active invention pipeline. However, from 2021 onward, the annual number of filings has declined noticeably, indicating a recent slowdown in new patent application activity.

Their granted patents are largely based on inventions filed prior to 2020

Since 2009 Exact Sciences have been granted 261 patents. Their current patent portfolio is largely based on inventions filed between 2010 and 2018.

Note: Important to note that recent published patents are not necessarily recent inventions.

How Exact Sciences’ patent families have evolved over two decades

Exact Sciences’ patent portfolio comprises 87 patent families, each containing one or more related patents. While the total number of families is relatively modest, the portfolio is broad, with an average of seven patent applications per family.

The growth-maturity matrix is presented below

The chart plots the top five patent families within each quadrant of the growth–maturity matrix, showing how representative families fall into emerging, growing, mature and waning stages.

Viewed across roughly twenty years of published patent applications, a clear pattern emerges in the evolution of Exact Sciences’ innovation focus.

The earliest families reflect foundational molecular assay formats, including general methylation assays, cleavage-based detection methods, mutation analysis, bead-based DNA processing, and epigenetic markers linked to cancer. These represent broad, platform-like techniques typical of early diagnostic development.

Over time, the portfolio shifted toward families centred on cancer detection and core workflow methods—such as nucleic acid isolation, neoplasm detection across multiple organs, and digital analysis of DNA methylation. These titles point to the period in which long-standing diagnostic approaches were developed and refined.

More recent application activity shows increasing emphasis on assay refinement and cancer-specific detection methods, with families addressing sample stabilisation, methylation-based analysis in defined genomic regions, and detection approaches for breast, colon and prostate cancer.

The newest families in the portfolio reflect emerging work on multiplexed and enzyme-based systems, including specialised nuclease substrates, engineered enzymes, encoded endonuclease assays and highly multiplexed detection constructs. These are the most recent areas of technical exploration visible in the published data.

What Abbott Stands to Gain from Exact Sciences’ Patent Portfolio Evolution

Abbott is acquiring the breadth of technical work represented in Exact Sciences’ patent portfolio, spanning foundational molecular assays, long-developed cancer detection workflows, disease-specific and methylation-based methods, and the company’s most recent exploratory work in multiplexed and enzyme-engineered detection systems. Viewed across two decades of published applications, this portfolio shows a progression from general molecular assay foundations, through cancer-focused detection workflows, into disease-specific and methylation-based approaches, and more recently toward next-generation multiplexed and enzyme-engineered technologies.

Taken together, this evolution provides a clear view of the depth and development of the IP Abbott is acquiring — and helps contextualise the scope and maturity of the innovation represented in the transaction.

The question now is - "What can Abbott build on top of this foundation"

Sources:

Abbott to acquire Exact Sciences, a leader in large and fast-growing cancer screening and precision oncology diagnostics segments

https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2025-11-20-Abbott-to-acquire-Exact-Sciences,-a-leader-in-large-and-fast-growing-cancer-screening-and-precision-oncology-diagnostics-segments

Five patents and 12 claims were reviewed

According to court documents five patents and twelve claims were reviewed for infringement.

The asserted patents:

• The “ 389 Patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
• The “ 547 Patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,314,547
• The “’223 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,558,223
• The “’164 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,723,164
• The “’425 Patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 11,828,425

The asserted claims:

• Claims 34 and 35 of the 389 Patent
• Claims 1 and 8 of the ’547 Patent
• Claims 1, 2, and 9 of the ’223 Patent
• Claims 1, 5, 6, and 9 of the ’ 164 Patent
• Claim 2 of the ’425 Patent

The jury found two patents and three claims were found to be infringed

According to court documents the jury found two patents and three claims had been infringed by Samsung.

• The “ 547 Patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,314,547
  • Claims 1 and 8 of the ’547 Patent
• The “’425 Patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 11,828,425
  • Claim 2 of the ’425 Patent

Samsung has filed an appeal

Samsung has expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling and has announced they will appeal.

In 2020 Pictiva acquired a portfolio of OLED patents from Osram

Pictiva are not the original owners of these patents, Osram were the original inventors and owners of these patents. In October 2020, Pictiva acquired a number of Osram's OLED patents. The terms of the transaction - including the number of patents, and the amount paid - were not disclosed.

Osram had been an early developer of OLED technology, but over the years the company slowly changed its market focus and reduced R&D activities.

Here is a brief timeline of OLED activity at Osram

• 2007-2010: Osram ceases production of OLED displays to focus on OLED lighting
• 2011-2016: Osram shifts OLED focus to automotive lighting
• 2018: Osram announces exit from OLED lighting and halts R&D
• 2020: Osram no longer provides support to existing customers

It seems Pictiva acquired around 165 patent families

The Pictiva patent portfolio consists of 473 patent applications, and 342 granted patents across 165 patent families.

Published patent applications peaked in 2015 and 2016, reaching close to 120 applications filed in each year. However, by 2019, has dwindled to just a few a year.

Published granted patents have been fairly steady, with many granted patents being published in recent years.

It is worth noting that patent applications, granted patents, published prior to 2009 have not been included in this analysis.

Patent filings are mainly in Germany and the US

Pictiva patent portfolio shows patent applications have been filed in seven countries, as well as with WO. Many patent applications were filed in Germany, which is not too surprising as Osram is based in Germany.

Patent applications have priority dates of 2017 and earlier

The majority of patent applications in the Pictiva patent portfolio were filed between 2011 and 2015 (light-blue). All have a priority dates of 2017 or earlier.

Granted patents have priority dates of 2017 and earlier

The majority of granted patents in the Pictiva patent portfolio were filed between 2011 and 2015 (light-blue). All have a priority dates of 2017 or earlier.

Patent families

Pictiva's patent portfolio has 165 patent families, each with one or more member. As previous noted, our analysis starts in 2009, so patent families published before 2009 do not appear in this analysis.

Value created — or simply realised?

The Pictiva verdict highlights how legacy OLED research can still generate significant financial outcomes under new ownership. Whether this represents true value creation—from foundational technology still relevant today—or value realisation through effective portfolio management and litigation, remains open to interpretation. With Samsung appealing, the final outcome will determine how much of this award translates into lasting value.

Source:

• Key Patent Innovations' Subsidiary Pictiva Display International Acquires Portfolio of OLED Patents From OSRAM - https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/key-patent-innovations-subsidiary-pictiva-display-international-acquires-portfolio-of-oled-patents-from-osram-301150892.html
  
  

Under the terms of the agreement, Blackstone and TPG will acquire all outstanding Hologic shares for US$76 per share in cash plus a non-tradable contingent value right (CVR) to receive up to US$3 per share in two payments of up to US$1.50 each, for total consideration of up to US$79 per share in cash.

The non-tradable CVR would be issued to Hologic stockholders at closing and paid, in whole or in part, following achievement of certain global revenue goals for Hologic’s Breast Health business in fiscal years 2026 and 2027.

This article examines Hologic’s patent portfolio to understand more deeply what Blackstone and TPG are acquiring.

Hologic’s patent portfolio is built around medical devices, diagnostic products, and technologies for women’s health

Since 2009, Hologic has published 2,006 patent applications and received 1,058 granted patents across 397 patent families.

The number of patent applications published per year varied between 100 and 120 during the period 2009 to 2019. Patent applications grew rapidly from 2020, reaching a peak of about 180 in 2021. Since then, the number of patent applications has steadily declined year-on-year.

In contrast, granted patents appear to have continued to grow steadily, and peaking in 2024.

Hologic's patent portfolio mainly US focused, but has filed in 21 countries

Hologic has filed patent applications in 21 countries. The top nine countries account for 1,913 filings - around 95% of the total. The remaining 12 countries account for the other 93 patent applications.

Patent applications have declined steeply since 2018

Patent applications have declined steeply since 2018, when more than 200 patent applications were filed. It is not clear what has caused this decline.

To date, Hologic has received 1,058 granted patents, about 53% of the patent applications. The majority of Hologic's granted patents - about 70% - were filed prior to 2016. Only 11 of the published granted patents - just 1% - have been filed within the past five years.

Hologic's patent families

Hologic's patent portfolio has 397 patent families, each with one or more member. Hologic was founded in 1985, focused on developing advanced x-ray technologies for osteoporosis detection. Our analysis starts in 2009, so patent families published before 2009 do not appear in this analysis.

• The earliest patent family found by this analysis is "X-Ray Bone Densitometry", with a priority date in 1994.
• The largest patent family has 54 members, and a priority date in 2017. The most frequently used title across this patent family is "Systems and methods for automated preparation of biological specimens".

Among the largest patent families filed within the past five years are "Tomosynthesis gain calibration and image correction", which has 14 members and a priority date in 2017, and "System and method for correlating object of interest", which has 10 members, and a priority date in 2021.

Expanding their patent portfolio through acquisitions

In 2024, Hologic acquired Endomagnetics and Gynesonics, each will have expanded the company's patent portfolio.

Endomagnetics

Endomagnetics has a patent portfolio of 246 patent applications, and 110 granted patents across 40 patent families. Both patent applications and granted patents show growth in recent years.

Gynesonics

Gynesonics has a patent portfolio of 185 patent applications, and 82 granted patents across 25 patent families. The majority of granted patents were filed prior to 2011.

Interesting to note there are only a few patents applications filed within the past five years. There are no granted patents filed within the past fives.

Cytyc

A number of patents with early priority dates list Cytyc Corp., as assignee. These patents were acquired when Hologic and Cytyc merged in 2007.

The acquisition of Hologic could see its patent portfolio grow - or be streamlined

Hologic’s portfolio is a strong pool of IP around technologies for women’s health. The question is whether this will be built upon, or whether the new owners will choose to narrow its focus.

Sources:

Hologic to be Acquired by Blackstone and TPG

https://investors.hologic.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2025/Hologic-to-be-Acquired-by-Blackstone-and-TPG-for-up-to-79-per-Share/default.aspx

Hologic Completes Acquisition of Gynesonics, Inc.

https://investors.hologic.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2025/Hologic-Completes-Acquisition-of-Gynesonics-Inc/default.aspx

Hologic Completes Acquisition of Endomagnetics Ltd

https://investors.hologic.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2024/Hologic-Completes-Acquisition-of-Endomagnetics-Ltd/default.aspx

Hologic and Cytyc Complete Merger

Hologic, Inc. - Investor Relationshttps://investors.hologic.com › press-release-details › H...22 Oct 2007 — Cytyc's products cover a range of cancer and women's health applications, including cervical cancer screening, preterm birth screening, ...

Patent intelligence for people who don't read patents

However, for those without a background in patents, or the means to access patent analytics, it’s not always clear what this growth in patents means for strategy, innovation, or competition.

To address this we are publishing the Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025. The report will be available at the end of September 2025.

The report aims to translate complex patent data into clear, decision-useful insights—designed for people who don’t read patents but need to understand what they reveal.

So whether you're tracking competitors, exploring partnerships, or planning R&D strategy, this report offers practical patent intelligence without legal jargon or technical complexity.

Sharing insights as we progress

As our research progresses towards the release of the report I’ll be sharing selected findings from the research conducted so far for the Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025.

Previously, we looked at the overall progress of quantum patent applications.

See previous articles:

• Quantum Technology Companies: patent analysis - part I
• Quantum Technology Companies: patent analysis - part II

Applicant analysis

One of the challenges in patent analysis is that company names are not always consistent.

Some online research services provide a “normalised” or “standard” name for each company. In our case, we work with raw patent data from the EPO, which means there are often many different variations of the same company name.

Take D-Wave as an example. In the current quantum computing dataset, there are 60 different entries for D-Wave. Some are simple variations of the company name, while others list inventors alongside, and there may also be partnerships listed.

All of these variations need to be “mapped” to a single normalised name: D WAVE SYSTEMS INC, which has been selected as it appears on the majority of the company's patent applications.

Here is a selection D-Wave applicant names present in patent data from the EPO Docdb master file.

• D WAVE SYSTEMS INC - 468
• DWAVE SYS INC - 141
• D WAVE SYSTEMS INC | 1372934 B C LTD - 12
• DWAVE SYSTEMS INC - 9

and there are also many patent applications that include the names of inventors, such as

• DWAVE SYS INC | JOHANSSON JAN | BERKLEY ANDREW J
• JOHANSSON JAN | BERKLEY ANDREW J | DWAVE SYS INC
• BUNYK PAUL | NEUFELD RICHARD DAVID | MAIBAUM FELIX | DWAVE SYS INC

Having company name variations makes it harder to analyse D-Wave’s patents by count, as the variations prevent all entries from being grouped together and the result is an incorrect total.

In the current dataset there are over 3,000 distinct “company names.” Many of these appear only once. While a few may represent a genuine single-patent company, the vast majority are variations of the same companies that file most of the applications.

An initial review suggests there are about 440 unique applicants that together account for 80% of all applications and grants.

Normalising these names manually would take too much time, which is why the process has to be automated using software — and that is what we have done. Without this step, analysis of the leading companies in quantum computing would be inaccurate.

Our analysis is informational only, with no legal consequence, so we use the clearest and shortest company name possible to keep the results consistent and easy to read.

Quantum technology developers

Recall, in Quantum Technology Companies: patent analysis I discussed grouping applicants into one of four

Quantum-first companies

Companies that are founded specifically to develop quantum technologies — such as quantum hardware, software, or algorithms. Quantum computing is their core business and reason for existence.

• Examples: IonQ, Rigetti, PsiQuantum, Oxford Quantum Circuits
• Key traits: Born-quantum, deep tech R&D, often start-ups or spinouts
• Focus: Building quantum systems from the ground up, applying quantum to existing problems (e.g., optimisation, simulation, cryptography)

Commercial companies (nonquantum-first)

Companies whose core business was built on classical technologies, but are now adopting or investing in quantum computing for strategic purposes. Quantum is not their origin, but a new direction.

• Examples: Google, Microsoft, Siemens, JPMorgan Chase, Accenture
• Key traits: Classical roots, large-scale infrastructure, quantum is an extension
• Focus: Applying quantum to existing problems (e.g., optimisation, simulation, cryptography), building quantum systems from the ground up

Academic Institutions

Organisations primarily focused on education and fundamental research. They play a critical role in advancing quantum science, often producing early-stage innovations that later lead to patents, spinouts, or collaborations with industry. While not commercial entities, many contribute significantly to the quantum patent landscape.

• Examples: University of Cambridge, TU Delft, Yale University, MIT
• Key traits: Research-driven, non-commercial, publish-first culture, often source of spinouts
• Focus: Fundamental research, talent development, IP generation

Government Institutions/Agencies

Public bodies responsible for funding, coordinating, and sometimes directly conducting quantum research. They help set national agendas, provide infrastructure support, and maintain strategic oversight. Some institutions also operate government labs or hold patents, but their role is typically to enable — not commercialise — quantum development.

• Examples: DARPA, NIST, CSIRO, Dstl, Fraunhofer, IMEC
• Key traits: Policy-driven, non-commercial, long-term focus, national interest
• Focus: Funding, coordination, standards, and strategic national capability

We will classify every patent applicant as one of these four groups.

Forty organisations account for over half of all quantum computing patent applications

The analysis that follows is based on patent applications filed between 2009 and mid-2025. More specifically, it covers patent applications where there is only a single applicant named, resulting in 20,036 patent applications.

The top-ten organisations in each group (40 organisations in total) filed 10,785 applications (54% of 20,036).

Concentration by group:

• Commercial (non-quantum-first) - 53%
• Quantum-first - 70%
• Academic - 28%
• Government - 60%.

Within the companies category, just the top-ten companies alone represent 39% of patent applications overall - 7,873 / 20,036.

Top-ten companies overall

This analysis is a ranking of the organisations in terms of patent applications, without any regard to the "organisation" type.

The top-ten companies account for 7,873 of 20,036 patent applications filed between January 2009 and June 2025. The top-ten organisations account for 39% of quantum computing patent applications.

There are 6 US organisations, 2 Chinese organisations, 1 Japanese, and 1 US/UK organisation.

Of the top-ten organisations, 7 are commercial (non-quantum-first) and 3 quantum-first organisations.

IBM (2,115) and Google (1,352) together account for 44% (3,467/7,873) of top-ten organisation filing patent applications.

Top-ten commercial (non-quantum-first) companies

Commercial (non-quantum-first) companies filed 53% of all quantum computing patent applications.

IBM (2,115), Google (1,352), Microsoft (819) account for 52% of this group’s patent applications.

By country, there are 5 US companies, 3 Chinese companies, and 2 Japanese companies.

Top-ten quantum-first companies

The top-ten quantum-first companies account for 70% of quantum computing patent applications – dominated by US and European companies

Origin Quantum leads with 1,107 patent applications (34%), followed by D-Wave (455) and IQM Finland (291)

By country, there are 5 US, 1 Finish, 1 Chinese, 1 French, 1 Germany, and 1 UK quantum-first companies.

Note: Zapata ceased trading in late 2024 – however published applications remain, so they are included.

Top-ten academic institutions

The top-ten academic institutions account for 28% of quantum computing patent applications. Yale leads with 196 patent applications (25% of top-ten total). MIT follows with 82, Harvard with 69, and Tsinghua with 60.

By country, there are 6 US institutions, 3 Chinese institutions, and 1 Dutch institution.

Top-ten government institutions

The top-ten government institutions account for 60% of quantum computing patent applications - broad international participation - no US institution.

The top-ten government institutions include France’s CEA (110), Korea’s ETRI (64), and Japan’s STA (48). While CEA leads, most government institutions have fewer patent applications compared to commercial organisations.

By country, there are 2 Korean, 2 Germany, 1 French, 1 Japanese, 1 Taiwanese, 1 Chinese, 1 Canadian, and 1 Dutch. There are no US government institutions in the top-ten.

Quantum computing patent landscape shows clear concentration of activity

The analysis shows that forty organisations account for 54% of published quantum computing patent applications between 2009 and 2025, highlighting a clear concentration of intellectual property activity across commercial companies, quantum-first companies, academic institutions, and government institutions.

IPC/CPC analysis will reveal technology segmentation

Patent counts alone do not establish technological dominance. Patent application volumes indicate where activity is occurring, but true strength depends on the specific sub-technologies — such as superconducting qubits, ion-trap systems, or photonics — where companies often hold very different positions.

Next insights

The next phase of this research will review IPC and CPC classifications to assess where organisations are investing within these sub-domains, and to identify which players are shaping the technological direction of quantum computing.

Patent intelligence for people who don't read patents

However, for those without a background in patents, or the means to access patent analytics, it’s not always clear what this growth in patents means for strategy, innovation, or competition.

To address this we are publishing the Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025. The report will be available at the end of September 2025.

The report aims to translates complex patent data into clear, decision-useful insights—designed for people who don’t read patents but need to understand what they reveal.

So whether you're tracking competitors, exploring partnerships, or planning R&D strategy, this report offers practical patent intelligence without legal jargon or technical complexity.

Sharing insights as we progress

As our research progresses towards the release of the report I’ll be sharing selected findings from the research conducted so far for the Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025.

Previously, we looked at the overall progress of quantum patent applications.

See previous article Quantum Technology Companies: patent analysis

This week's analysis

Granted patents by publication year

The chart below shows the number of granted patents published each year since 2009. Just like patent applications, there is a clear upward trend. This is to be expected as an emerging technology starts to commercialise.

Granted patents by filing year

As we saw with patent applications another way to look at patents is in terms of the filing dates, in this case filing year. This gives a clearer view of when the invention was first claimed - and is often used as a way of dating the invention itself.

For granted patents we see there has been a majority filed before 2020,and more than 1,400 filed in 2019.

To help with analysis, I’ve colour-coded the filing dates in four groups: before 2009, 2010–2015, 2016–2020, and 2021 onwards.

Colour-coding the granted patents by filing year becomes more useful when combined with publication year. Plotting them this way shows how many granted patents were published each year, grouped by when they were actually filed.

This highlights an important point: a granted patent published this year might relate to an invention filed — and originally developed — several years earlier.

You can see this clearly in the group of granted patents filed between 2016 and 2020. Many of them were still being published as late as 2025, even though the peak filing year year was 2019.

Time to grant

The time from a patent application filing to a granted patent is shown in the chart below. The average time-to-grant is around 36 months, it has slowly been edging higher since 2019 were the average time-to-grant was 30 months.

Clearly, these are averages and can be misleading: some patents are granted quickly, while others take much longer. It often depends on how well the patent application is written, how focused the claims are, and how smoothly the back-and-forth between the company and the patent office goes.

In other words, 36-months is a useful benchmark — but will vary on a case-by-case basis.

Why is time-to-grant helpful?

If a patent application takes longer than the 36-month average may suggest the application is facing challenges (e.g. difficult claims or specification), is under opposition, or may even be heading toward abandonment. So worth monitoring.

Publication country

Companies file patent applications with patent offices around the world mainly to support how and where they plan to commercialise their inventions. Because patents are only valid in the country (or region) where they are granted, businesses often need to file in several jurisdictions to ensure a smoother path for commercialisation and to reduce the risk of competitors copying their ideas in those markets.

In the tables, two-letter codes are used for countries, and RoW is included to mean “Rest of the World,” grouping all other countries together.

Patent applications

The top four countries - China, the USA, Europe and Japan - account for 85% of quantum computing patent applications filed. I have not included WO (WIPO) applications here, as they do not result in patents themselves.

Companies file with WIPO under the PCT to keep their global options open. One filing secures an international date and gives them up to 30 months to decide which countries to pursue, delaying big costs while providing early patentability feedback.

A WIPO filing is simply a placeholder to secure a priority date that is recognised worldwide, and companies still need to file patent applications in each country where they want protection.

What a WO application does provide is a visible signal to competitors of a company’s future patenting intentions, even though it carries no enforceable rights on its own.

Growth in publications at all the main PTO are growing rapidly.

Granted patents

The top four countries - the USA, China, Japan and Europe - account for 87% of quantum computing granted patents. There are no WO (WIPO) granted patents.

The main PTOs have the most granted patents, with both US and CN holding dominant positions.

Looking at patent activity by PTO shows where companies expect commercialisation to take place. But it does not reveal which countries are actually behind the filings and grants. For that, patents need to be analysed by their priority country.

Priority county

Analysing by priority country shows where patents are first filed, and reflects where the companies behind those applications are based.

Patent applications

The chart below shows that, by priority country, filings are dominated by the US, which accounts for 50% of all applications. China contributes 24%, Japan 7%, and Europe 7%. This suggests technology development is currently centred in the US.

Granted patents

As expected, granted patents are awarded in very similar percentages: US (57%), China (26%), Japan (6%) and Europe (3%).

Publication country vs priority country mapping

Comparing publication country with priority country shows which patents stay at home and which are filed abroad.

Patent applications

The table below shows that most patents are published in the same country where they were first filed. US filings are mainly published in the US (4,417), and Chinese filings stay almost entirely in China (4,889). Japan and Europe also show a strong home focus.

The difference is in how much filing takes place outside the home country. US companies file more widely abroad, often through the WO route (2,384), and with strong activity in Europe (1,666) and China (970). Japan and Europe also file overseas, though at lower levels. Chinese companies, on the other hand, file mainly at home with very limited international activity.

Note: Think of publication country as where you want protection, and priority country as country of origin.

Granted patents

The table below shows that most granted patents are published in the same country where they were first filed. US filings are mainly granted in the US (3,215), and Chinese granted patents almost entirely in China (2,096). Japan and Korea also show a strong home focus.

Patent families

Patent families in simple terms represent a collection of patent applications and granted patents that all derive from a single invention.

Patent families are considered to be a more pragmatic approach to understanding the innovation of a company.

A company may have many patent applications across a number of different countries, but may only represent a simple patent family.

Comparing companies in terms of the number of patent families and the priority dates gives a more representative view of their innovation pipeline.

Patent applications

Analysis shows there are about 11,092 unique patent families representing nearly 25,000 patent applications, or roughly 2.27 applications per family (227 applications per 100 families). Of these, 6,819 families contain only a single application, while around 2,200 families have two or more. Families with multiple applications include both filings spread across different countries and, in some cases, multiple applications within the same country.

Granted patents

Analysis shows there are about 5,300 unique patent families representing nearly 9,000 granted patents, or around 1.69 granted patents per family (169 granted patents per 100 families). Of these, 3,842 families contain only a single granted patent, while about 1,500 families have two or more. Families with multiple granted patents include both grants spread across different countries and, in some cases, multiple grants within the same country.

Let's take a look at these for a single company

For this example I've chosen D-Wave for analysis. According to the company's website D-Wave was founded in 1999, and consider themselves as a leader in the development and delivery of quantum computing systems, software, and services. They also claim to be the world’s first commercial supplier of quantum computers.

Granted patents by publication year

D-Wave has seen 245 granted patents published since 2009. Between 2020 and 2024, an average of 22 published granted patents. Between 2020 and 2025 saw 50% of all their granted patents published.

Granted patents by priority year

D-Wave's 245 granted patents are based on inventions filed in 2020 and earlier. Granted patents based on inventions filed since 2016 account for 34%, meaning 66% of the current published granted patents are based on inventions filed in 2015 or earlier.

Another observation to note is the number of granted patents being published may indicate a slowing down of their innovation pipeline, and possibly fewer patents being granted outside the USA.

This highlights an important point: a patent published this year might relate to an invention filed — and originally developed — several years earlier.

Time to grant

D-Wave’s average time-to-grant has generally been longer than the industry benchmark of 36 months, though it fluctuates year to year — sometimes coming in below, sometimes above.

Publication country

D-Wave is a US-based company, so it is only to be expected that most of its patent applications have been filed with the USPTO.

Patent applications

D-Wave has actively filed patents in the US, EP, CN, CA, JP, GB, KR and FI. The majority are in the US.

D-Wave’s patent applications are mainly US-based, with filings in other countries varying over time. Active international filing may be a signal that the company considers a particular innovation worth protecting worldwide — either for its own commercial use or to limit competition.

Granted patents

D-Wave’s portfolio includes over 200 granted US patents, with only a few granted elsewhere.

D-Wave’s granted patents are mainly US-based, with smaller numbers scattered across four other countries.

Next insights

We will look further at the patent dataset in terms of

• Applicants

Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025

Pre-order your copy today

The report will be available to purchase in late September 2025.

Pre-order, and pay, for the Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025.

Report details

Patent intelligence for people who don't read patents

However, for those without a background in patents, or the means to access patent analytics, it’s not always clear what this growth in patents means for strategy, innovation, or competition.

To address this we are publishing the Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025. The report will be available at the end of September 2025.

The report aims to translates complex patent data into clear, decision-useful insights—designed for people who don’t read patents but need to understand what they reveal.

So whether you're tracking competitors, exploring partnerships, or planning R&D strategy, this report offers practical patent intelligence without legal jargon or technical complexity.

Sharing insights as we progress

As our research progresses towards the release of the report I’ll be sharing selected findings from the research conducted so far for the Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025.

This week's analysis

We take a company-first approach for analysis

Patent analysis is often organised around technology categories. While this is useful for understanding which types of technologies are being developed, it doesn’t explain how individual companies are innovating overall, or how they may compete now and in the future.

This report takes a company-first approach. Technologies are still analysed, but only in the context of which companies are working in those areas and how their portfolios are evolving.

Patent activity in quantum computing comes from a wide mix of organisations — not just start-ups or tech giants. To make sense of this, the report classifies all quantum technology developers into four broad groups: quantum-first companies, nonquantum-first companies, academic institutions, and government agencies. Each group plays a different role in the quantum ecosystem, with distinct motivations for filing patents — whether to build products, secure strategic positioning, generate knowledge, or shape national policy.

Quantum technology developers

Quantum-first companies

Companies that are founded specifically to develop quantum technologies — such as quantum hardware, software, or algorithms. Quantum computing is their core business and reason for existence.

• Examples: IonQ, Rigetti, PsiQuantum, Oxford Quantum Circuits
• Key traits: Born-quantum, deep tech R&D, often start-ups or spinouts
• Focus: Building quantum systems from the ground up, applying quantum to existing problems (e.g., optimisation, simulation, cryptography)

Nonquantum-first companies

Companies whose core business was built on classical technologies, but are now adopting or investing in quantum computing for strategic purposes. Quantum is not their origin, but a new direction.

• Examples: Google, Microsoft, Siemens, JPMorgan Chase, Accenture
• Key traits: Classical roots, large-scale infrastructure, quantum is an extension
• Focus: Applying quantum to existing problems (e.g., optimisation, simulation, cryptography), building quantum systems from the ground up

Academic Institutions

Organisations primarily focused on education and fundamental research. They play a critical role in advancing quantum science, often producing early-stage innovations that later lead to patents, spinouts, or collaborations with industry. While not commercial entities, many contribute significantly to the quantum patent landscape.

• Examples: University of Cambridge, TU Delft, Yale University, MIT
• Key traits: Research-driven, non-commercial, publish-first culture, often source of spinouts
• Focus: Fundamental research, talent development, IP generation

Government Agencies

Public bodies responsible for funding, coordinating, and sometimes directly conducting quantum research. They help set national agendas, provide infrastructure support, and maintain strategic oversight. Some agencies also operate government labs or hold patents, but their role is typically to enable — not commercialise — quantum development.

• Examples: DARPA, NIST, CSIRO, Dstl, Fraunhofer, IMEC
• Key traits: Policy-driven, non-commercial, long-term focus, national interest
• Focus: Funding, coordination, standards, and strategic national capability

We will classify every patent applicant as one of these four groups.

Identifying quantum technology patents to include

We took a simple and straightforward approach and use patent classification codes to identify those patents of interest.

What are patent classification codes?

Patent classification codes are used to organise and tag patents based on the type of technology they describe — a bit like how libraries use subject categories for books.

Two main systems are used globally:

CPC – Cooperative Patent Classification

• Developed by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
• Offers fine-grained detail — especially useful for emerging technologies like quantum computing
• Often used by analysts, researchers, and patent examiners for searching and grouping similar inventions

IPC – International Patent Classification

• Managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
• Used globally across all patent offices
• Provides broader categories compared to CPC
• Helps standardise how technologies are classified worldwide

When a company files a patent, it gets assigned one or more of these codes based on the technology it covers. In quantum computing, classification codes help:

• Group similar patents together
• Track developments in specific technical areas
• Compare activity across regions or organisations

Why are classification codes useful for searching?

Patent documents are often technical, long, and written in very different ways — even when they describe similar ideas. This makes keyword searching unreliable on its own.

Classification codes solve this by acting like filters.
They group patents by technology, not just by the words used in the text.

So if you're looking for:

• All patents about quantum error correction, or
• Everything filed under quantum key distribution (QKD)

—you can search by classification code to find relevant patents, even if different companies describe the same thing in very different language.

Patent classification codes relevant to quantum computing

CPC (Cooperative Patent Classification)

These are more detailed codes used primarily by the EPO and USPTO:

• G06N 10/20 – Models of quantum computing (e.g. quantum circuits, universal quantum computers)
• G06N 10/40 – Physical architectures for quantum processors (e.g. qubit control, superconducting, ion traps)
• G06N 10/60 – Quantum algorithms (e.g. Grover’s, Shor’s, quantum optimisation, hybrid approaches)
• G06N 10/70 – Quantum error correction (e.g. surface codes, fault tolerance)
• G06N 10/80 – Quantum programming and platforms (e.g. SDKs, quantum languages, cloud-based access)

IPC (International Patent Classification)

A broader, globally-used system, with general categories relevant to quantum:

• G06N 10/00 – Quantum computing overall (covers models, hardware, algorithms, etc.)

The patent dataset

The quantum computing patent dataset was built by searching DOCDB, the EPO’s main patent database. The search looked for any record with one or more of the CPC or IPC classification codes mentioned earlier, and that had been published since January 2009.

It returned just over 30,000 patent records. These include early-stage applications, granted patents, and various corrections. This is the raw dataset — I’ll be cleaning and refining it as the research goes on.

Right now, the data sits in a local database, which I use to run structured searches and groupings. I also export parts of it into Excel — a spreadsheet provides a quick and easy way to scan through applicants or technologies in bulk.

From filing to grant: How patents progress

When a company files a patent application, it’s marking the point in time when it first claims an invention. This is called the filing date, and it starts the formal review process.

Often, the company will first file in its home country. That initial application is known as the priority filing, and the priority date is the official timestamp of the invention. Any later filings in other countries (for the same invention) will usually refer back to that date.

After a delay — typically 18 months — the application is made public. This is called the first publication date, and it’s the point where the details of the invention become visible to others.

Once filed, the application enters a structured review. This is handled by patent examiners — trained specialists at the patent office. Their job is to assess whether the invention meets the legal requirements for patent protection. That includes checking if it’s new, inventive, clearly described, and doesn’t overlap with earlier patents.

This review process — often called prosecution — can involve questions, objections, rewording, or technical clarifications. It’s a back-and-forth between the applicant and the examiner.

In the end, one of several outcomes is possible:

• The patent is granted, giving the applicant legal protection
• The application is withdrawn, either voluntarily or due to inactivity
• Or the record is updated through corrections or formal amendments

This process can take two to five years or more, depending on the complexity and the patent office involved.

Patent applications by publication date

The chart below shows the number of quantum computing patent applications published each year since 2009. There’s a clear upward trend, with published patent applications growing rapidly over time.

Note that the data for 2025 only covers the first six months of the year.

Patent applications by filing year

Another way to look at patent activity is by the year the initial application was filed. This gives a clearer view of when the invention was first claimed — and is often used as a way of dating the invention itself.

The filing date is usually also the priority date — the earliest official timestamp for that invention.

To help with analysis, I’ve colour-coded the filing dates in four groups: before 2009, 2010–2015, 2016–2020, and 2021 onwards.

Patent applications by publication and priority grouping

Colour-coding the applications by filing year becomes more useful when combined with publication year. Plotting them this way shows how many patents were published each year, grouped by when they were actually filed.

This highlights an important point: a patent published this year might relate to an invention filed — and originally developed — several years earlier.

You can see this clearly in the group of patents filed between 2016 and 2020. Many of them were still being published as late as 2025, even though the peak publication year was 2021.

Let's take a look at these for a single company

For this example I've chosen D-Wave for analysis. According to the company's website D-Wave was founded in 1999, and consider themselves as a leader in the development and delivery of quantum computing systems, software, and services. They also claim to be the world’s first commercial supplier of quantum computers.

D-Wave has 407 patent applications published between 2009 and mid-2025.The number of published patent applicants grew steadily between 2014 and peaked in 2020.

Looking at the patent applications by filing year shows patent activity has shifted over time. Since 2016, D-Wave has filed 216 patent applications,

Since 2016 D-Wave has filed 216 patent applications:

• 100 patent applications filed in 2010 and earlier
• 91 patent applications filed between 2011 and 2015
• 182 patent applications filed between 2016 and 2020
• 34 patent applications filed from 2021 onwards

The chart below also shows that even the most recent published patent applications all relate to inventions filed in 2022 or earlier. That’s due to the typical delay — usually around 18 months — between filing and publication.

This highlights an important point: a patent published this year might relate to an invention filed — and originally developed — several years earlier.

Taken together with the drop in filings since 2021, this could suggest a slowing in D-Wave’s innovation pipeline. It may also be due in part to international expansion, that is another piece of the analysis which I will discuss next week.

Finally,

It’s important to note that even if a company has a lot of patent applications published in a short time frame, that doesn’t mean the inventions are recent.

Patent analysis is a bit like astronomy — we’re looking at past activity to understand what’s happening now, and even into the future.

Next insights

We will look further at the patent dataset in terms of

• publication country
• filing country
• granted patents
• patent families

Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025

Pre-order your copy today

The report will be available to purchase in late September 2025.

Pre-order, and pay, for the Quantum Technology Companies: Patent Report 2025.

Report details

Illumina is very clear they are acquiring Somalogic for their products and technologies

Illumina are clear in their reasons for acquisition:

• SOMAmer related products and technologies, coupled with technology development capability
• Proteomics technologies and expertise
• Data-driven proteomics technology

Illumina plans to extend the scalability of NGS to proteomics

"The acquisition of SomaLogic will enhance Illumina’s presence in the expanding proteomics market and advance the multiomics strategy announced in 2024. This will strengthen the value of our sequencing platforms today and unlock greater capabilities in the future."

"Illumina and SomaLogic have partnered closely for more than three years, and this combination increases our ability to serve our customers and accelerate our technology roadmap towards advanced biomarker discovery and disease profiling."

"We are taking the scalability of NGS into proteomics."

Jacob Thaysen, chief executive officer of Illumina. [1]

This article examines Somalogic's patent portfolio to understand more deeply what Illumina have acquired.

SomaLogic's patent portfolio is built around four key platform technologies and two technology application areas

As of November 2022, Somalogic state on their website that their IP estate is built around four key platform technologies: Chemistry, Detection, SELEX and Data Analytics, and two technology application areas: diagnostics and therapeutics.

Somalogic's patent applications are growing, although rate of granted patents not keeping pace

Since 2009 Somalogic has published 963 patent applications, and received 237 granted patents across 135 patent families.

The number of patent applications published per year has been between 40 and 90 during the period 2012 and 2024. Published patent applications did see two peaks, the first in 2015 and a second in 2022.

In contrast, published granted patents appear to have steadily fallen since 2015.

SomaLogic’s international filing strategy is evolving, becoming more focused

SomaLogic has filed patent applications in 33 countries. The top nine countries account for 752 filings—around 78 percent of the total. The remaining 24 countries cover the other 211 applications.

Patents have been granted in 12 countries. The US, Australia, and Europe (EP) represent the three largest jurisdictions, accounting for 69 percent of SomaLogic’s granted portfolio.

In its earlier years, the company sought broad geographic coverage—filing in over 30 countries. More recent filings are concentrated in just eight jurisdictions: the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, China, South Korea, and Mexico, with international (PCT) filings used as a stepping stone to those markets. The shift likely reflects a move to focus protection where it matters most commercially, while keeping overall patenting costs under control.

Somalogic's granted patents are based on innovations filed prior to 2016

The number of patent applications published annually seems to suggested a healthy and active innovation pipeline (see left-hand chart).

However, if these are analysed in terms of year of filing, also known as priority year, then over the past 15 years the number of patent applications filed each year reached a peak of 126 in 2010 (see right-hand chart), and then gradually declined to around 45 per year up until 2022. Then in 2023 patent application filings dropped to a level lower than previous years, this could be an early sign something has changed.

While patent application filed in 2024 were also lower than average we can assume this is primarily linked to delay between filing and publication of patent applications. By the end of 2025 analysis of the published patents will highlight if the decline in filing during 2024, and 2023, were significant.

To date Somalogic has received 237 granted patents, about 33% of patent applications. The majority of Somalogic's granted patents, 88%, were filed before 2016. Only 29 of the published granted patents - just 12% - have been filed since 2016.

Somalogic's recent patent families seem to be focusing on NGS sequencing of proteins and quality assessment

Somalogic's patent portfolio has 135 patent families with one or more member.

• The largest patent family has 80 members, and a priority date in 2007, the most frequent title found across this patent family is "Multiplex analyses of test samples".
• The largest patent families filed within the past 5 years are "Next-generation sequencing of protein measurement", and "Method for sample quality assessment".

Somalogic's patent portfolio may have been pruned prior to acquisition

Somalogic state they own or control 601 domestic and foreign issued patents, and 332 domestic and foreign pending patent applications. However, this is not what was found from searching EPO DOCDB patent data.

The patent portfolio information on their website predates the acquisition by Standard Biotools. It maybe they Standard Biotools have already transferred the patents they want from Somalogic to Standard Biotools. Consequently, we see a smaller patent portfolio.

"As of November 2022, SomaLogic owns or controls 601 domestic and foreign issued patents, and 332 domestic and foreign pending patent applications."

Source: Somalogic Website, Nov 2022

Illumina inherits a focused, well-aligned IP portfolio

SomaLogic’s patent portfolio reflects a company that has shifted from filing globally to one that has narrowed its focus to key markets and technologies. For Illumina, this represents a relatively lean portfolio—concentrated, granted, and aligned with core proteomic capabilities.

The question is whether this existing IP foundation will be built upon or simply slotted into Illumina’s broader multiomics roadmap.

Source:

Illumina to Acquire Somalogic documentation

https://s24.q4cdn.com/526396163/files/doc_events/2025/Jun/23/Illumina-to-Acquire-SomaLogic_2025-06-23.pdf

Somalogic Patent Estate

https://somalogic.com/list-of-patents/

The deal grants Lilly full control over Verve’s pipeline, including VERVE-101 and VERVE-102—targeting PCSK9 for LDL cholesterol reduction—as well as proprietary base-editing technology. The transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2025, subject to customary closing conditions.

In brief:

• The acquisition expands Lilly’s capabilities in single-dose gene therapies.
• Verve’s IP portfolio is dominated by two families covering base editing and RNA delivery.
• The deal includes a CVR that could be reduced by up to US$0.50 to offset patent defence costs.
• The offset applies up to a maximum of US$44 million across all CVRs.
• The offset provision indicates patent ownership questions remain unresolved.

Verve has a growing patent portfolio

Verve was founded in 2018, and has since accumulated a patent portfolio of 90 application patents, and 20 granted patents, across 10 patent families.

Verve is pursuing filings worldwide, as it seeks commercial opportunities globally

Verve has actively filed in 13 different countries as it seeks to protect its intellectual property in countries it believe are commercially attractive. The main countries are the UK, United States, Canada, Australia, Israel and Korea.

Two patent families account for 68% of the application patents

Two Verve patent families account for 37 and 24 application patents, respectively.

78022701: BASE EDITING OF PCSK9 AND METHODS OF USING SAME FOR TREATMENT OF DISEASE (most common title) [espacenet | google patents]

• 37 application patents [AU | BR | CA | EP | GB | IL | JP | KR | MX | PH | US | WO]
• 9 granted patents [GB | AU | US]

77612786: Compositions and methods for targeted rna delivery (most common title) [espacenet | google patents]

• 24 application patents [AU | BR | CA | EP | GB | IL | KR | MX | PH | US | WO]
• 9 granted patents [GB | US]

Eli Lilly seeks to limit financial exposure in case of essential patent dispute

The Eli Lilly offer to acquire Verve is made up of two part

(i) $10.50, net to the stockholder in cash, without interest and less any applicable tax withholding

(ii) one non-tradable CVR per Share, which represents the contractual right to receive a contingent payment of up to $3.00 per CVR, net to the stockholder in cash, without interest and less any applicable tax withholding, upon the achievement of a certain specified milestone

The CVR agreement includes a clause that allows Eli Lilly to reduce the milestone payment by up to $0.50 per CVR if it incurs costs related to securing or defending ownership of certain patents.

These reductions apply in the event of a "Final Resolution"—a defined outcome of a dispute regarding the Relevant Patents—and cover 50% of qualifying expenses, including licensing fees, legal counsel, expert witnesses, and arbitration or court costs. Any such offset is distributed pro rata across all outstanding CVRs.

The Eli Lilly offer document makes explicit mention of the following patents.

Relevant Patents: means the claims under PCT patent application publication numbers WO2021207710, WO2021207711, and WO2021207712, together with any patents issuing therefrom.

• WO2021207710 | BASE EDITING OF ANGPTL3 AND METHODS OF USING SAME FOR TREATMENT OF DISEASE [espacenet | google patents]
  • Provided herein are compositions for gene modification or editing and methods of using same to treat or prevent certain conditions. Specific compositions and methods capable of safely and effectively editing gene targets expressed in the liver to durably lower LDL-C thereby treating a leading cause of cardiovascular disease are disclosed.
• WO2021207711A2 | CHEMICALLY MODIFIED GUIDE RNAS FOR GENOME EDITING WITH CAS9 [espacenet | google patents]
  • Provided herein are compositions for gene modification or editing and methods of using same to treat or prevent certain conditions. Specific compositions and methods capable of safely and effectively editing gene targets expressed in the liver to durably lower LDL-C thereby treating a leading cause of cardiovascular disease are disclosed.
• WO2021207712A2 | BASE EDITING OF PCSK9 AND METHODS OF USING SAME FOR TREATMENT OF DISEASE [espacenet | google patents]
  • Provided herein are compositions for gene modification or editing and methods of using same to treat or prevent certain conditions. Specific compositions and methods capable of safely and effectively editing gene targets expressed in the liver to durably lower LDL-C thereby treating a leading cause of cardiovascular disease are disclosed.

This mechanism shifts part of the financial risk associated with potential patent disputes from Lilly to the CVR holders. It protects Lilly from having to absorb the full cost of defending or acquiring exclusive rights to the underlying intellectual property.

Is this a small offset with a symbolic signal?

It’s worth asking why Lilly included this clause at all. The maximum offset—$0.50 per CVR—equates to about $44 million in total, or roughly 4.4% of the upfront cash component of the deal. But as a share of the $3.00 CVR itself, it represents a potential reduction of 16.7%. That’s a more noticeable impact for CVR holders, especially given that the pay-out is already contingent.

The offset may ultimately function more as a symbolic hedge than a material one—signalling that ownership of the underlying IP isn’t entirely settled, even if the cost of defending it may be.

Source:

Lilly to acquire Verve Therapeutics to advance one-time treatments for people with high cardiovascular risk
https://ir.vervetx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lilly-acquire-verve-therapeutics-advance-one-time-treatments

Tender offer schedule and amendment filed by a third party
https://ir.vervetx.com/node/9096/html

IonQ and Oxford Ionics have announced they have entered into a definitive agreement for IonQ to acquire Oxford Ionics in a transaction valued at US$1.075 billion, which will consist of US$1.065 billion in shares of IonQ common stock and approximately US$10 million in cash (subject to customary closing adjustments and expenses).

According to the announcement this transaction:-

• will bring together IonQ’s quantum compute, application and networking stack with Oxford Ionics’ ion-trap technology manufactured on standard semiconductor chips
• will combine both companies' technologies aiming to deliver innovative, reliable quantum computers that increase in power, scale, and problem-solving capabilities
• will see both companies seek to benefit from the other’s complementary technologies, deep expertise, and IonQ’s global resources and established customer base

The combined company:-

• expects to build systems with 256 physical qubits at accuracies of 99.99% by 2026 and advance to over 10,000 physical qubits with logical accuracies of 99.99999% by 2027
• anticipates extending its innovation by reaching 2 million physical qubits in its quantum computers by 2030, enabling logical qubit accuracies exceeding 99.9999999999%

According to IonQ, the combined company expects

• to maintain all existing customer relationships, including government partnerships in both the UK and US
• to continue working with the UK National Quantum Computing Centre and the government's Quantum Missions program, driven by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Innovate UK, helping to develop practical quantum computing applications in manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and defence.

The acquisition of Oxford Ionics follows IonQ’s recent quantum computing and networking momentum, including the recent acquisition of Lightsynq and pending acquisition of Capella.

In brief:

• IonQ will acquire Oxford Ionics for US$1.075 billion, comprising mostly shares and some cash.
• Oxford Ionics brings a 19-family patent portfolio, technical team, and UK base.
• The IP centres on photonic integration with trapped-ion systems, including scalable chip designs.
• Most filings are in the UK and Europe, with limited geographic spread to date.
• The deal raises the question: why acquire a start-up with only 3 granted patents?

Oxford Ionics' ion-trap-on-a-chip technology set to accelerate IonQ’s commercialisation plans

“IonQ’s vision has always been to drive real-world impact in every era and year of quantum computing’s growth. Today’s announcement of our intention to acquire Oxford Ionics accelerates our mission to full fault-tolerant quantum computers with 2 million physical qubits and 80,000 logical qubits by 2030”

“We believe the advantages of our combined technologies will set a new standard within quantum computing and deliver superior value for our customers through market-leading enterprise applications."

“We are pleased to welcome Oxford Ionics founders Dr. Chris Ballance and Dr. Tom Harty, and the rest of the Oxford Ionics team to IonQ. Their groundbreaking ion-trap-on-a-chip technology will accelerate IonQ’s commercial quantum computer miniaturization and global delivery. Our combined path to millions of qubits by 2030 will help ensure unit economics, scale, and power as quantum computing rapidly evolves.”

Niccolo de Masi, CEO of IonQ

Oxford Ionics patent portfolio is small, but growing

Acquiring Oxford Ionics also gives IonQ access to their patent portfolio. Oxford Ionics'  portfolio consists of 19 patent families, 38 patent applications and 3 granted patents. First patents were published in 2021, but the earliest application has a priority of 2020.

Their patent portfolio is UK centric

Oxford Ionics has filed the majority of the patents with the UK IPO. Twenty-three have been filed with the UK IPO (GB), six filed with WIPO (WO), four with Australia IP (AU), three with the EPO (EP) and 2 with the USPTO.

Patent applications filing started in 2020. There was significant growth in applications in both 2022 and 2024

IonQ patent portfolio substantially larger than Oxford Ionics'

IonQ began filing patents just a year before Oxford Ionics. However, IonQ's patent portfolio is substantially larger than Oxford Ionics'. Since 2019 IonQ has accumulated a patent portfolio consisting of 375 patent applications, and 105 granted patents, across 158 patent families.

IonQ's largest patent family - 199 patent applications - is titled:

• Stabilization of entangling gates for trapped-ion quantum computers [view on espacenet | google]

IonQ see their growing patent portfolio as important to share in their investor updates

The Oxford Ionics patent portfolio is not the smallest it has acquired.

Why acquire a start-up with only 3 granted patents?

At first glance, Oxford Ionics’ patent portfolio looks modest: 19 families, 38 applications, and only 3 grants. IonQ’s own portfolio is more than 10 times larger.

So why a deal worth over US$1 billion?

There are three strategic possibilities—each pointing to a different theory of value:

• The IP is critical
  Oxford Ionics’ core patents—especially those covering its ion-trap-on-a-chip design—may be fundamental to commercialising scalable, fault-tolerant ion-trap systems. If so, US$1 billion could be a justified price to secure essential architecture.
• The IP is important, but this is about blocking
  Even if the IP isn’t essential, it may be strategically useful. The acquisition could prevent a competitor from accessing Oxford Ionics’ platform and team, limiting future competition in the trapped-ion segment.
• The IP supports a wider market access play
  Beyond patents, Oxford Ionics offers strong links into the UK’s national quantum programmes and technical talent pool. The acquisition may help IonQ build out regional partnerships and delivery capabilities—especially in areas where public–private alignment is critical.

Even when the IP isn’t the headline, it can signal where technical and competitive priorities are converging. It will be worth watching how both companies' patent portfolios evolve post-deal—especially as IonQ moves toward its 2030 targets.

References

[1] IonQ Announces Agreement to Acquire Oxford Ionics. Oxford Ionics. 9 June 2025. https://www.oxionics.com/announcements/ionq-announces-agreement-to-acquire-oxford-ionics

The planned purchase aims to strengthen Regeneron’s ongoing leadership in genetics-guided research and drug development to help people with serious diseases.

Regeneron has stated that it plans to:

• maintain the consumer genetics business
• advance shared goals of improving human health and wellness
• prioritise the privacy, security and ethical use of 23andMe’s customer data

23andMe will be operated as a wholly owned direct or indirect subsidiary of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and continue operations as a personal genomics service.

Pending bankruptcy court and regulatory approvals, the deal is expected to close in Q3 2025.

Regeneron seeks to be seen as a safe custodian of DNA data

George D. Yancopoulos, co-Founder, Board co-Chair, President and Chief Scientific Officer of Regeneron, said:

“Through our Regeneron Genetics Center, we have a proven track record of safeguarding personal genetic data, and we assure 23andMe customers that we will apply our high standards for safety and integrity to their data and ongoing consumer genetic services. We believe we can help 23andMe deliver and build upon its mission to help people learn about their own DNA and how to improve their personal health, while furthering Regeneron’s efforts to improve the health and wellness of many.”

Beyond data security, this acquisition signals Regeneron’s intent to leverage 23andMe’s genetic data—and by extension its patent portfolio—into therapeutic pipelines.

23andMe's patent portfolio started small then expanded rapidly after 2019

23andMe's patent portfolio started small but saw rapid growth after 2019. By March 2025, the company had built up 49 patent families, with 231 applications filed and 89 granted patents. The first decade (2007–2017) was relatively uneventful, as the number of patents published each year gradually decreased. This trend clearly shows in the chart below. But from 2019 onward, there was a significant increase in patent activity, with granted patents following similar growth.

23andMe’s patent filings have largely concentrated on the US market

Eighty percent of 23andMe’s applications are filed with just three patent offices: the USPTO (US), the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WO/PCT), and the European Patent Office (EPO).

23andMe has filed 134 patent applications at the USPTO, 30 patents under WO (PCT), and 21 at the European Patent Office.

Nearly all granted patents (96.6%) are US patents—86 out of 89. The remaining granted patents include two in Europe and one in South Africa.

Over time their innovation focus has shifted

Since 2018, 23andMe’s filings have steadily pivoted away from genealogy toward drug-discovery innovations.

The chart below shows the number of patents filed each year between 2007 and 2023. There are periods 2007-2009 and 2018-2020 where there was significant patent filing activity.

Most granted patents derive from genealogy inventions filed between 2007 and 2012.

Number of patents by filing year

Examining published patents by when they were filed (priority grouping) shows this more clearly, as seen in the chart below. While the number of granted patents is increasing, most are based on inventions filed prior to 2010.

Number of patents and priority groupings by publication year

Consumer-driven healthcare flywheel

In the company's recent investor report, they outline two business models in play.

The company sees these models working together as a consumer-driven healthcare flywheel.

Clearly, the two models operate in synergy—but one is more vulnerable than the other when it comes to IP.

Innovation patent pipeline under pressure

The company’s largest rival, Ancestry.com, claims to have the world’s largest DNA database, with 25 million entries.

Ancestry.com's patent portfolio is also larger than 23andMe's. By March 2025, the company had built up 148 patent families, with 511 applications filed and 182 granted patents.

Another noticeable difference is the age of the patent portfolio. The majority of Ancestry.com's patents have been filed since 2016, giving them a larger and younger portfolio.

Patents typically have a 20-year lifespan, so those early applications filed in 2007 may be nearing expiry, assuming they haven’t already been abandoned. As these genealogy-focused patents lapse, 23andMe could lose ground in that segment—especially compared to competitors.

This raises a key question: "Will 23andMe need to refresh its Personal Genome Service IP to stay competitive with Ancestry.com?"

Sources and notes:

Sources:

Regeneron press release:

https://newsroom.regeneron.com/news-releases/news-release-details/regeneron-enters-asset-purchase-agreement-acquire-23andmer-256

23andMe Investor Presentation - 2025-02-05:

https://investors.23andme.com/static-files/c5b02f5f-eb63-40ea-bd02-0f44f0074fc5

Notes:

Google said this acquisition represents an investment by Google Cloud to accelerate two large and growing trends in the AI era: improved cloud security and the ability to use multiple clouds (multi-cloud).

Industry analysts are of the view Google’s deal to acquire Wiz has been to shrink the gap with Amazon and Microsoft’s ever-growing cloud computing businesses.

Since the company's inception, in January 2020, they have followed a very proactive approach to protecting their intellectual property - this can be seen in the rapid growth in the patent portfolio. Currently, their patent portfolio consists of 57 patent families, 71 application patents, and 24 granted patents (as of Jun 2024). The bulk of their portfolio has been filed with the US patent office. International protection is progressing, and they have filed 17 WO applications, with Canada the first country with an active application.

Wiz has an increase number of applications being filed since 2020 - an indication of a healthy "innovation pipeline". The recency of their patent applications affords the company with many years of IP protection.

Examination of Wiz's patent portfolio clearly demonstrates cloud security is a core component for the business.

• detecting vulnerabilities in configuration code of a cloud environment utilizing infrastructure as code
• system and method for analyzing network objects in a cloud environment
• techniques for multi-tenant vulnerability scanning
• static analysis techniques for determining reachability properties of network and computing objects

As Google seeks to close the gap with AWS and Microsoft, Wiz offers not just strong cloud security tech, but a growing patent portfolio that could support broader platform differentiation in the years to come.

Sources:

Google announces agreement to acquire Wiz: https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/google-agreement-acquire-wiz/

Ampere Computing is engaged in developing high-performance, energy-efficient processors tailored for cloud computing and AI workloads. The company currently employs around 1000 engineers. Ampere Computing was founded in 2018 with an initial focus on cloud-native computing.

The acquisition will help enhance SoftBank Group’s capabilities in key areas and accelerate its growth initiatives. It also aims to broaden SoftBank Group AI infrastructure investments in ventures such as Cristal intelligence and Stargate.

Softbank with acquire 100% ownership, and as part of the deal Ampere’s biggest investors, Carlyle Group and Oracle, will divest their respective stakes in the company to SoftBank. Currently, Carlyle Partners VI Denver owns a 59.65% stake in Ampere Computing while Oracle Project Denver owns 32.27% interest. Arm Technology Investment Limited, an affiliate of Arm, holds 8.08% stake in Ampere. SBG holds majority stake in Arm.

“The future of Artificial Super Intelligence requires breakthrough computing power. Ampere’s expertise in semiconductors and high-performance computing will help accelerate this vision, and deepens our commitment to AI innovation in the United States.”

Masayoshi Son, Chairman and CEO of SoftBank Group Corp.

Some industry analysts believe this acquisition is aimed at supporting OpenAI's Stargate initiative.

"SoftBank already owns Arm, which could easily make a server CPU chip for OpenAI to use as a host for its AI systems. SoftBank already owns AI accelerator and system maker Graphcore, which it bought in July 2024. Buying Ampere Computing would seem to be redundant, despite the fact that the company, founded by server chip experts from Intel, Applied Micro, and others, has a roadmap to get to 512-cores in a socket and to add local AI processing in the CPU package with its “Aurora” AmpereOne A3 processor, expected sometime next year."

Ampere's patent portfolio has 74 patents families, 170 application patents and 76 granted patents. these patent families have received granted patents.

Ampere appears to have a healthy "innovation pipeline." About 50% of their patent applications have been filed within the last 5 years, and are clearly on an upward trend.

The company has patents in the portfolio that have a priority date before the company was founded. This could be for several reasons:

• The company had a different origin story
• The company acquired a company with patents that were filed earlier
• The company licenced patents from another company or companies

The companies listed on these early patents are Applied Micro Circuits, and Macom Connectivity Solutions.

Publicly available sources indicate Ampere Computing was founded in the Fall of 2017 by Renée James, ex-President of Intel, with funding from The Carlyle Group. Here is states that James acquired a team from MACOM Technology Solutions (formerly AppliedMicro) in addition to several industry hires to start the company.

A final look Ampere's patent activity also reveals something worth noting. Through its acquisition of OnSpecta in July 2021, Ampere gained several software-focused AI patents:

• Microkernel-Based Software Optimization of Neural Networks
• Multiformat Data Generation for Neural Network
• End-to-End Optimization

These filings suggest a planned expansion beyond hardware design into the performance layer of AI interference. While small in volume, they hint at Ampere's intent to own not just the processor - but the entire AI workload. That, in turn, may explain why Softbank sees Ampere as a valuable ;piece of its long-term, AI infrastructure strategy.

Sources:

SoftBank Group to Acquire Ampere Computing : https://group.softbank/en/news/press/20250320

Why Did SoftBank Just Buy Ampere Computing?:
https://www.nextplatform.com/2025/03/21/why-did-softbank-just-buy-ampere-computing/

Wikipedia - Ampere Computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere_Computing

TheNextPlatform: Offers in-depth coverage of high-end computing at large enterprises, supercomputing centers, hyperscale data centers, and public clouds

Ampere Computing: https://amperecomputing.com/

Vivani Medical was formed in 2022 through the merger of Second Sight Medical and Nano Precision Medical. Cortigent, previously known as Second Sight Medical Products, has since operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivani.

The goal of this transaction is to create two companies, each focused on advancing their respective therapeutic areas of expertise. Cortigent is developing brain implant devices to help people recover critical body functions, and describes itself as "a global leader in precision neurostimulation technology that provides meaningful visual perception (“artificial vision”) for blind people."

“We believe that the best way to realize the full potential of Cortigent is to enable it to operate independently with a management team dedicated to advancing its proprietary neuromodulation technology and developing medical devices that address human conditions where there is significant unmet medical need."

- Adam Mendelsohn, CEO, Vivani Medical

One key question remains - "What will Cortigent's patent portfolio actually look like?"

Our analysis of the Vivani patents portfolio uncovers a number of interesting insights.

Vivani Medical has not filed patents under its own name. Their patent portfolio appears to be managed in two separate entities - a Second Sight Medical patent portfolio and a Nano Precision Medical patent portfolio.

It is assumed that all patents previously assigned to Second Sight Medical will be reassigned to Cortigent.

The patent portfolio of Second Sight Medical shows that since 2009, 334 patent applications and 447 patents have been granted across 151 patent families.

As shown in the charts below, patent applications have steadily declined since 2009, with almost no new filings after 2016.

Analysis by filing dates reveals that application activity slowed to fewer than 20 filings per year after 2007 and appears to have stopped entirely between 2016 and June 2024.

Many Second Sight patents filed in 2009 and earlier will be expiring by 2029. Patents have a maximum lifespan of 20 years from date of filing. Some patents could be extended to say 2032, if they obtain patent term adjustment. Based on the average extension of about 2.5 years.

2Seventybio and BMS co-developed Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel)a BCMA-targeted CAR-T cell therapy for multiple myeloma, which received US Food and Drug Administration approval in April 2024.

According to other news reports Abecma has faced increasing competition in the multiple myeloma space, particularly from Johnson & Johnson and Legend Biotech’s BCMA CAR-T Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel).

2Seventybio was spun out of Bluebird bio in 2021. Two week ago Bluebird bio was itself acquired for about US$30 million by Carlyle and SK Capital.

2Seventybio's patent portfolio has 600 application patents and 126 granted patents across 44 patent families. Only 16 patent families have received granted patents.

Their largest patent family contains 54 application patents - titled "bcma chimeric antigen receptors", and 27 of these are granted patents."

2Seventybio appears to have healthy "innovation pipeline." Since 2018 there has been 28 patent families filed containing 224 applications, so far only 1 application has granted so far. Given the historic grant rates of 30% - 40% suggested we can expect around 70 applications being granted over the next few years.

Sources:

• 2seventy bio Enters into Definitive Agreement to be Acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb, March 10, 2025