For years, parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were the near-automatic response of a defendant in district court patent litigation. Accused infringers routinely filed petitions—especially inter partes review (IPR) petitions—challenging validity of the asserted patents at the PTAB. Given the PTAB’s technical expertise, historically favorable invalidation rates, and lower standard of review on invalidity, this has been a favored approach among defendants.

A recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision related to hybrid quantum computing paves the way for more quantum computing-related patents, and potential litigation.  

Quantum computing is an important and evolving form of computing that has yet to be truly realized. Classical computing is, fundamentally, governed by the ability to store information in a bit, a binary unit represented by a one or a zero. In contrast, quantum computing is governed by a quantum bit, or qubit, which can represent an infinite, continuous number of possible states. For example, while 2 bits can store four combinations (00, 01, 10, or 11), 2 qubits can store all four combinations simultaneously. Hybrid quantum-classical computing (“HQC”) involves using both quantum computing and classical computing together in a system for one to address the shortcomings of the other. At its core, both types of computing are well known and rely on mathematical concepts making patent claims on a HQC highly susceptible to patent ineligibility attacks.