Our Blog

Quantum Computing Inventions and CIPO’s Physicality Requirement

May 07, 2026

Part 3 of a 4-part series on subject matter eligibility after CIPO’s March 2026 Practice Notice

What CIPO Says

The March 2026 Practice Notice does not address quantum computing specifically. Quantum computing inventions are therefore assessed under the same framework as other computer-implemented inventions, including the Schlumberger question.

Under that framework, claims are assessed to determine whether they amount to an abstract algorithm implemented on a computer or whether they include features that provide the required physicality, such as improvements to the computer’s operation.

How the Analysis Operates in Practice

Quantum algorithms may be treated as abstract without physical grounding

The Schlumberger question distinguishes between abstract algorithms and their implementation on a computer. In the absence of specific guidance for quantum technologies, this framework may be applied to quantum computing inventions in the same way as to classical software.

In practice, if a quantum invention is described primarily as a “quantum algorithm” without reference to the physical operations that implement it, the analysis may proceed on the basis that the invention is an abstract computational method.

The physical substrate is central to the computation

Quantum computing systems operate through physical phenomena, including superposition, entanglement, and interference. Qubits are physical systems, and quantum gate operations correspond to physical transformations of those systems.

This means that the computation is carried out through physical operations on a physical substrate. The preparation of quantum states, the application of gate sequences, and the measurement of outcomes are all physical processes with measurable effects.

Framing determines how the invention is characterized

Under the holistic appreciation standard, how the specification presents the invention influences how it is assessed. A description that focuses on abstract computational steps may lead to an abstract characterization, while a description that emphasizes physical operations and system behavior supports a characterization grounded in physicality.

Prosecution Takeaways

Describe the quantum system in physical terms

The specification should describe the qubit architecture and implementation in physical terms. This includes the type of system used, the mechanisms for state preparation and manipulation, and any relevant physical constraints.

Grounding the invention in its physical implementation supports the characterization of the computation as a physical process rather than an abstract algorithm.

Characterize gate operations as physical transformations

Quantum gate operations should be described as physical control sequences applied to qubits. Where relevant, the specification should describe how those operations are implemented and what physical effects they produce.

This includes details such as control signals, timing, and any techniques used to improve fidelity or reduce error.

Identify computational improvements in physical terms

Where the invention achieves improvements in performance, those improvements should be described in terms of the system’s operation. This may include improved fidelity, reduced error rates, more efficient use of qubits, or improved execution of a defined task.

Where applicable, comparisons to classical approaches or alternative quantum methods can support the characterization of the improvement.

Incorporate physical features into the claims

Claims should reflect the physical aspects of the quantum system, including qubit configurations, gate sequences, and measurement steps. Claims framed solely in terms of abstract computational steps are more likely to be treated as algorithms implemented on a computer.

Address implementation challenges in the specification

Where the invention includes techniques for managing noise, decoherence, or error correction, those techniques should be described in the specification. These aspects of the system are part of the technical contribution and support the characterization of the invention as grounded in physical operations.

Under the March 2026 Practice Notice, eligibility for quantum computing inventions depends on how the invention is presented in relation to the physical system that performs the computation. Describing the computation as a sequence of physical operations on a defined quantum system supports a characterization that aligns with the physicality requirement.

The next post in this series addresses software and fintech inventions under the new framework.