The Technology behind the Quantum Ecosystem

In celebration of World Quantum Day this April, we're sharing a series of weekly articles exploring different layers of today’s quantum ecosystem.  Drawing on the joint report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Patent Office (EPO), “Mapping the Global Quantum Ecosystem” (December 2025), this first piece steps back to look at the foundations: the physics, the hardware, and how quantum innovation is evolving.

 

The Physics Sets the Rules

Quantum technologies are not just an incremental improvement on classical systems. They rely on physical principles that differ fundamentally from classical physics.

• Superposition allows a quantum system to exist in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
• Entanglement introduces correlations between two quantum particles such that measuring one reveals information about the other no matter the distance between them.
• The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to simultaneously accurately measure certain pairs of physical properties of a particle. The more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other can be known.
• Quantisation means that, at the quantum level, certain particle properties such as energy, charge and spin can only exist in discrete values.
• Tunnelling is the phenomenon where a particle’s wave function extends into and through an energy potential barrier it would otherwise not overcome under classical physics.

These are not abstract curiosities! They define what is and is not possible in quantum engineering. Every hardware platform, regardless of approach, is effectively an attempt to control these effects.

 

Three Technologies, Three Very Different Problems

Three main quantum technology areas are identified in the report: communication, computing and sensing. While often discussed together, each area leverages different quantum phenomena to solve different problems.

 

Quantum communication focuses on secure information transfer and cryptography. When using quantum key distributions, any attempt to tamper with transmitted quantum states, while intercepting a signal, introduces detectable disturbances in the quantum states. The security does not rely on computational complexity, but on the physics of the measurement itself. Current practical limitations in this area include: limited transmission distance, relatively low data rates, and the inability to amplify quantum signals without destroying or corrupting them (no-cloning theorem). 

 

Quantum computing is conceptually the most ambitious! Qubits exploit superposition and entanglement to represent and process information in ways that scale very differently from classical parallel computing. Given that qubits can simultaneously exist in both the 0 and 1 states until measured, qubits enable multiple solution paths to be explored simultaneously as opposed to the sequential limitation present in classical computing. Although a system with many qubits can represent a vast state space, that does not directly translate into usable computational power. The advantage comes from carefully designed algorithms that use interference to amplify probability amplitudes of correct solutions. In practice, this makes quantum computers powerful for specific classes of problems rather than universally superior machines.  

 

Quantum sensing is the most mature in terms of near-term applications. By exploiting quantum superposition, entanglement and the uncertainty principle, quantum sensing systems surpass classical sensitivity limits, sometimes by several orders of magnitude. Entangled particles may be used to cancel out common noise sources while amplifying the actual signal being measured. Quantum sensing can be used for instance to detect magnetic fields billions of times weaker than that of the Earth, and in quantum atomic clocks so precise that only one second is lost in 30 billion years! Still, for most everyday applications, classical technologies remain more practical and cost‑effective.

 

Taken together, these three areas are less a single industry than three technological trajectories sharing a common physical foundation.

 

The Real Bottleneck: Controlling the System

Across all three areas, the same challenge appears repeatedly: control.

 

Qubits are fundamentally fragile; any interaction with the environment can collapse superposition and destroy quantum information. The more complex the system, the harder it becomes to maintain stability.

 

This is where the engineering challenge begins to dominate the physics. It is not enough to create a quantum state. It must be isolated, manipulated and measured with extreme precision, often under highly constrained conditions. Hence, scaling is a central challenge in the field; the inability to scale is driven by high error rates, environmental sensitivity, and, therefore, immense physical infrastructure demands.

 

Thus, progress in quantum technologies is as much about engineering stability and reproducibility as it is about advancing theory.

 

A Fragmented Hardware Landscape

While classical computing converged around the silicon transistor, an equivalent point of standardisation is yet to be realised in quantum hardware.

 

The report highlights a diversified hardware landscape, with no dominant platform emerging across quantum technologies. Instead, multiple physical implementations are being pursued in parallel, each attempting to balance coherence, controllability and scalability. Leading approaches include superconducting circuits, trapped ions, neutral atoms, photonic systems and semiconductor-based qubits (such as quantum dots).

 

These platforms differ fundamentally in how qubits are realised and manipulated. Superconducting circuits rely on Josephson junctions operating at millikelvin temperatures, enabling fast gate operations but requiring complex cryogenic infrastructure. Trapped ions and neutral atoms, by contrast, offer longer coherence times and high-fidelity operations, but face challenges in scaling and control complexity. Photonic platforms stand out for operating at or near room temperature and for their natural compatibility with communication networks, although generating strong interactions between photons remains technically demanding.

 

The absence of convergence at this stage suggests that the field is still in a pre-standardisation phase, where different technological routes are being explored in parallel before any clear industrial architecture emerges.

 

Infrastructure is not an Afterthought

What is often underestimated is the extent to which quantum hardware depends on its surrounding environment.

 

Hardware performance is defined by trade-offs across coherence time, gate fidelity, connectivity and manufacturability. This is reflected in the enabling infrastructure required for each platform. For instance, ultra-high vacuum systems are critical for atom-based approaches to prevent unwanted particle interactions, while cryogenic environments are essential for superconducting devices to stabilise quantum states.

 

Several platforms, particularly superconducting circuits, quantum dots and integrated photonics, build on semiconductor manufacturing processes, leveraging established CMOS-compatible fabrication techniques, which present a clear path to wafer‑scale fabrication.

 

This duality is important. Quantum technologies are both new in their physics and deeply dependent on existing industrial capabilities.

 

Patents Tell a Different Story

Looking at patent data provides a useful lens on how the field is evolving.

 

International patent families (IPF) reflect inventions which possess enough commercial value to warrant protection across jurisdictions. IPFs are significantly more common in quantum technologies than in other fields. The internationalisation rate (share of patent families that qualify as IPFs) in quantum technologies is 31.2%, compared to the 12.0% rate across all technology fields. This suggests that applicants already see quantum inventions as globally relevant.

 

China accounts for the largest number of quantum patent families in absolute terms - over 16,000 - though most are filed domestically. Still, China shows a notably increased internationalisation rate at 5.8% for quantum technologies compared to the 2.0% across all domains.

 

By contrast, applicants from the United States and Europe show an inclination towards seeking international protection. 

 

Growth trends

More striking is the growth trends! Quantum patenting has increased rapidly over the past two decades. The number of IPFs in quantum technologies increased more than more than sevenfold between 2005 and 2024.

 

It’s clear that of the three quantum technology areas that quantum computing has become the most dynamic field, while quantum communication remains the largest in absolute terms with quantum sensing progressing steadily on a smaller scale. Specifically, quantum communication grew by 4.6 times, quantum computing expanded nearly sixty-fold, and sensing grew by about 2.4 times in that period. The bulk of this growth occurred after 2014, which saw a compound annual growth rate of 20% for quantum IPFs whereas patenting across all technology fields grew at just 2%.

 

This reflects a shift in the field. Early activity was more evenly distributed, but recent innovation is increasingly concentrated in computing platforms and associated technologies. Behind the explosive quantum computing growth is the physical realisation of hardware platforms such as superconducting circuits and trapped ions, followed by algorithms and error correction.

 

The shift to Company‑dominated Innovation

Another clear trend is the shift in who is driving innovation.

 

Companies now account for approximately 80% of IPFs in quantum technologies. Earlier in the development of the field, universities and individual inventors played a much larger role. The share of individuals has declined since 2015, reflecting a migration of inventors into startups and a gradual transfer of IP activity from universities to corporate actors. 

 

At the same time, collaboration remains important. The US serves as the central hub for international co‑applicant activity in patenting quantum innovation, accounting on average for 40% of other countries international co-applications. Its strongest collaboration links are with the UK, Germany and China. Notably, European countries collaborate more frequently with the United States, China and Japan than with each other. A large proportion of these international links reflects multinational enterprises, such as IBM coordinating patent filings across multiple jurisdictions.

 

A Field Still Taking Shape

What emerges from this picture is not a single, coherent industry, but a field still in formation.

The underlying physics is well understood, but the engineering challenges remain significant. Multiple hardware approaches are competing, each with different advantages and limitations. Innovation is accelerating, but is becoming increasingly concentrated in certain areas, particularly quantum computing.

Perhaps most importantly, the development of quantum technologies is already intertwined with broader industrial systems, particularly semiconductor manufacturing and advanced electronics.

Next week, we move from the technology itself to the organisations shaping the Quantum Ecosystem and in particular the distinction between core and non-core players.

 

This briefing is for general information purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for legal advice relating to your particular circumstances. We can discuss specific issues and facts on an individual basis. Please note that the law may have changed since the day this was first published in April 2026.