UKIPO Guidelines Update to Include Quantum Computing

The United Nations declared 2025 as the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology, and in that context the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) introduced new guidance in January 2025 addressing the patentability of quantum computing-related inventions. This update introduced, for the first time, specific guidance on patenting quantum computing-related technologies. These updates can be found in Section 1.46 of the UKIPO’s Manual of Patent Practice (MoPP).

 

As for any other invention, patent applications in the field of quantum computing must meet the requirements of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness) and industrial applicability. The updated guidelines now make it clear that the UKIPO’s definitions of a computer and a computer program include their quantum counterparts. In other words, quantum computers are treated as a form of computer system for the purposes of assessing excluded subject matter.

 

Quantum computers are considered to be programmable and capable of being adapted to implement specific hard computations analogously to classical co-processors. Accordingly, quantum computing inventions are treated as a form of computer‑implemented invention and, in broad terms, are assessed in line with the framework applied to classical computer-implemented inventions.  

 

Excluded subject matter and technical effect

 

As with classical computer-implemented inventions, the statutory exclusion for “programs for a computer … as such” remains relevant and a program for a quantum computer as such will not be considered patentable. However, section 1.46.1 states that when a computer program is about the physical implementation and/or operation of the hardware, e.g. aspects of superconducting and/or photonic circuits or gates for controlling, processing and measuring qubits it is likely to escape exclusion.

 

Similarly, inventions which improve the internal workings of a quantum computer, such as by making the quantum computer operate in a new or improved way, will not be excluded from patentability. Additionally, when a program for a quantum computer is applied to a technical process the program may not be excluded from patentability. For example, if a program achieves a technical effect outside the computer or at the core or implementation level of the quantum computer or quantum/classical hybrid system.

 

More specifically to quantum computers, technical effects may also be realised by a program that overcomes problems such as short decoherence time or noise. For example, by adapting the program design, e.g. at the logical qubit level and/or by compiling or transpiling, as long as such a technical problem is not circumvented.

 

Impact of the UK Supreme Court decision in Emotional Perception AI

 

Since the January 2025 UKIPO guidance was introduced, the legal landscape relating to the assessment of computer-implemented inventions has since changed significantly.

In its February 2026 judgment in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller‑General of Patents ([2026] UKSC 3), the UK Supreme Court fundamentally reshaped the UK approach to excluded subject matter. As discussed in our earlier article, the Court confirmed that artificial neural networks are “programs for computers”, but more importantly abandoned the long-standing Aerotel approach in favour of the European Patent Office (EPO) methodology.

 

Under this revised approach:

• The initial question of whether an invention is excluded is assessed using an “any hardware” test.
• If a claim involves any technical means (e.g. hardware), it will generally not be excluded at this stage.
• The key analysis then shifts to identifying which claimed features contribute to the technical character of the invention.
• Those features are then assessed for inventive step.
  
  

This represents a lower threshold at the exclusion stage and a corresponding shift in emphasis toward inventive step.

 

What this means for quantum computing inventions

 

The Supreme Court’s decision was not specific to quantum computing, but it has clear implications for this area.

 

In particular:

• Quantum computing inventions are now even less likely to be excluded at the threshold stage, provided they are framed as involving technical means.
• The key battleground is likely to shift to whether the claimed features contribute to technical character, particularly in mixed hardware–software or algorithmic inventions.
• There is now greater alignment with EPO practice, which may improve predictability for applicants pursuing parallel UK and European filings.

 

The UKIPO is currently updating its practice to reflect the Supreme Court’s decision, but it is clear that the assessment of quantum computing inventions will evolve in line with this broader shift in the treatment of computer-implemented inventions.

 

Conclusion

 

The introduction of quantum-specific guidance in the MoPP marks a welcome step in recognising the distinct technical challenges of this emerging field. However, the subsequent Emotional Perception decision represents a more significant development, bringing UK practice into closer alignment with the EPO and reshaping how patentability is assessed for all computer-implemented technologies, including quantum computing.

 

For applicants in this space, the focus should now be on clearly articulating the technical character and technical contribution of their inventions, particularly in relation to the physical realities of quantum systems.

 

For specific advice on your invention, please reach out to your Keltie attorney.