Quantum Computing Litigation

Quantum computing litigation involves disputes arising from the development, sale, licensing, access, implementation, security, or commercial use of quantum technologies. These matters may concern quantum hardware, classical control systems, cloud platforms, software, algorithms, intellectual property, research relationships, cybersecurity, or regulatory compliance.

A quantum computer uses quantum-mechanical effects to process information encoded in quantum bits, commonly known as qubits. Quantum systems may approach certain computational problems differently from conventional computers, but the technology remains under development and its capabilities vary by architecture, device, workload, software stack, calibration conditions, and testing method. Businesses are nevertheless purchasing cloud access, conducting pilot programs, licensing software, sharing confidential information, and investing in quantum-related products and services. Legal disputes can arise before large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computing becomes broadly available.

Our law firm assists clients with technology-related litigation and dispute resolution involving contracts, software, cloud computing, cybersecurity, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets, and emerging technologies. This page focuses on disputes involving quantum computing and related technologies. The firm's broader quantum technology practice also addresses contracts, intellectual property ownership, cybersecurity planning, privacy, and regulatory risk.

Quantum computing projects frequently combine specialized hardware, software, cloud infrastructure, scientific research, proprietary information, and third-party services. The participants may include processor developers, component manufacturers, cloud providers, software companies, research institutions, universities, investors, consultants, government contractors, and enterprise customers. Each participant may have different contractual duties concerning performance, ownership, confidentiality, security, compliance, and project failure.

Hardware and implementation disputes may arise when equipment is delayed, defective, incompatible, improperly installed, or unable to satisfy agreed specifications. The disputed issues may include procurement terms, acceptance testing, calibration, maintenance, integration, documentation, warranties, change orders, cost overruns, or termination rights. Because performance can depend on the system architecture, workload, calibration state, error rate, compiler, control environment, and benchmark methodology, the parties should identify precisely what was promised and how performance was to be measured.

Quantum-as-a-Service and other cloud-access arrangements may create disputes concerning system availability, queue priority, usage limits, pricing, account suspension, platform changes, data retention, confidentiality, access credentials, or ownership of inputs and outputs. A service-level agreement may also address technical support, incident response, data segregation, permitted uses, subcontractors, export restrictions, and the return or deletion of information when the relationship ends.

Software and intellectual property disputes may involve source code, quantum circuits, compilers, control software, error-mitigation methods, hybrid quantum-classical workflows, datasets, technical documentation, or confidential research. Claims may arise from alleged trade secret misappropriation, unauthorized copying, breach of a nondisclosure agreement, use beyond the scope of a license, failure to assign inventions, employee or contractor misconduct, or competing ownership claims involving jointly developed technology.

Research and commercialization disputes may involve sponsored research agreements, joint development agreements, strategic partnerships, consulting arrangements, pilot programs, investments, or technology-transfer licenses. The parties may disagree about milestones, funding, publication rights, patent filings, background intellectual property, newly developed intellectual property, exclusivity, commercialization authority, or representations concerning technical readiness.

Not every unsuccessful project or unmet expectation creates a legal claim. The available rights and remedies ordinarily depend on the governing agreement, applicable representations, acceptance criteria, warranties, limitations of liability, documented performance, causation, damages, and relevant statutory or common-law duties.

State law will often govern the commercial aspects of a quantum computing dispute. Depending on the facts, the claims may include breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unfair competition, interference with contractual relations, or requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. The governing-law provision in the parties' agreement can materially affect the available claims, defenses, limitation periods, remedies, and interpretation of contractual terms.

In California, the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, California Civil Code sections 3426 through 3426.11, provides civil remedies for the misappropriation of information that qualifies as a trade secret. Depending on the facts, quantum-related trade secrets may include source code, algorithms, circuit designs, manufacturing methods, calibration techniques, research data, technical documentation, customer information, and business strategies. Under California Civil Code section 3426.1, the information must derive independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable through proper means and must be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. In California litigation, California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 generally requires a party alleging trade secret misappropriation to identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery relating to it.

California privacy and data-security laws may also apply when a quantum-related platform or service handles personal information. The California Consumer Privacy Act, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act, may impose notice, consumer-rights, data-use, retention, and reasonable-security obligations on covered businesses. California Civil Code section 1798.150 creates a limited private right of action when specified nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information, or certain email-address and account-credential combinations, is subject to unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure as a result of a business's violation of its statutory duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. California Civil Code section 1798.82 may separately require notice to affected California residents following a qualifying data breach; current law generally requires notice within 30 calendar days after discovery or notification of the breach, subject to statutory delay provisions. These statutes do not create liability merely because quantum technology is involved; their application depends on the parties, the information, the conduct, and the statutory elements.

There is no single state-law claim that applies to every quantum technology dispute. The legal analysis should distinguish between an experimental limitation that was adequately disclosed, a contractual performance failure, a false or misleading representation, a security incident, and the misuse of protected intellectual property.

Federal law may govern particular aspects of a quantum computing dispute. The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1836, authorizes a private civil action for the misappropriation of a trade secret related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. The federal Copyright Act may protect original expression in software code and documentation, but copyright does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries. The Patent Act may apply to patented machines, processes, or other claimed inventions, subject to patentability requirements and the scope of the patent claims. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1030, may apply to certain conduct involving access without authorization or access that exceeds authorized access, depending on the facts and the limits of the statute.

Post-quantum cryptography is another important federal issue. On August 13, 2024, the National Institute of Standards and Technology finalized FIPS 203, which specifies the ML-KEM key-encapsulation mechanism, and FIPS 204 and FIPS 205, which specify the ML-DSA and SLH-DSA digital-signature methods. NIST has encouraged organizations to identify uses of quantum-vulnerable public-key cryptography and begin planning for migration to approved post-quantum standards. The concern is prospective: a sufficiently capable future quantum computer could threaten certain widely used public-key cryptographic systems, and long-lived encrypted information may be collected now for possible decryption later. Currently available systems are not known to constitute cryptographically relevant quantum computers capable of defeating those systems at scale.

The Quantum Computing Cybersecurity Preparedness Act, Public Law 117-260, addresses the migration of federal executive-agency information technology to post-quantum cryptography by requiring inventories, prioritization, migration guidance, and agency planning. In June 2026, Executive Order 14412, Securing the Nation Against Advanced Cryptographic Attacks, and Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-26-15 accelerated federal migration planning through agency migration leads, risk-based inventories, phased plans, and deadlines for specified high-value, high-impact, or highly sensitive systems. These authorities principally govern federal agencies and do not automatically impose the same duties on every private business. NIST standards, applicable procurement requirements, sector-specific rules, and contractual promises may nevertheless be relevant to a particular private-sector dispute.

Federal export controls can also affect quantum projects. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, controls specified quantum computers and related electronic assemblies and components, as well as certain associated equipment, materials, software, and technology, under the Export Administration Regulations. The controls use technical thresholds and classification criteria, and license requirements may depend on the destination, end user, end use, and available license exceptions. A transaction may require Export Control Classification Number analysis, restricted-party screening, deemed-export review, and licensing analysis. The presence of a quantum-related component does not, by itself, establish that an item, software release, technology transfer, or service is controlled.

Federal jurisdiction may arise because a claim is created by federal law, because the parties satisfy diversity-jurisdiction requirements, or because another statutory basis exists. Many contract and business-tort claims remain governed by state law even when they are litigated in federal court.

Quantum technology projects frequently cross national borders. Hardware may be manufactured in one country, software developed in another, cloud services hosted in several regions, and research conducted by participants in multiple jurisdictions. These arrangements may raise questions concerning governing law, forum selection, arbitration, intellectual property ownership, confidentiality, cross-border data transfers, sanctions, customs, and export controls.

The European Union maintains a dual-use export-control regime under Regulation (EU) 2021/821, as amended. The current EU control list includes specified quantum computers and related electronic assemblies and components that meet stated technical thresholds. The regulation can also treat the electronic transmission or electronic availability of controlled software or technology to a destination or recipient outside the customs territory of the European Union as an export. European Union Member States and other jurisdictions may impose additional export, investment-screening, sanctions, national-security, or research-security requirements. Cross-border transfers of technical information may therefore require legal analysis even when no physical equipment changes hands.

International privacy laws may also apply when quantum-related services process personal data and the law's territorial and material requirements are satisfied. For example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation regulates the processing and security of personal data and restricts transfers of personal data to third countries or international organizations unless applicable conditions or safeguards are satisfied. Contractual provisions concerning data location, subprocessors, security measures, breach notification, and government access should be reviewed in light of the jurisdictions involved.

International disputes can be complicated by inconsistent laws, difficult service of process, evidence located abroad, foreign-language records, and uncertainty about the recognition or enforcement of judgments. A carefully drafted agreement should address governing law, forum, arbitration, confidentiality, interim relief, intellectual property, export compliance, and the location and preservation of relevant data.

Quantum computing disputes may depend on technical evidence that changes over time. Relevant materials can include contracts, statements of work, source-code repositories, system logs, access records, benchmark protocols, calibration records, test results, support communications, billing records, research notebooks, version histories, security alerts, and internal representations concerning technical readiness. Once litigation is reasonably anticipated, parties and counsel should consider appropriate preservation measures and avoid the loss or alteration of relevant electronically stored information.

Qualified experts may be necessary to address quantum physics, hardware engineering, software, cryptography, cybersecurity, digital forensics, or damages. The role of counsel is to identify the governing legal questions, connect the technical evidence to the elements of the claims and defenses, and present the issues in a manner that a judge, arbitrator, mediator, or jury can understand.

Depending on the facts and governing law, potential remedies may include compensatory damages, restitution, contractual credits, termination, specific performance, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, return or deletion of confidential information, restrictions on use or disclosure, an accounting, or attorneys' fees where authorized. Contractual provisions concerning warranty disclaimers, limitations of liability, indemnification, insurance, fee shifting, and exclusive remedies may substantially affect the result.

Quantum-related agreements may require litigation in a designated court, confidential arbitration, mediation, expert determination, or a multi-step dispute-resolution process. Early legal analysis can help preserve evidence, identify applicable deadlines, evaluate technical and contractual defenses, determine whether emergency relief is appropriate, and assess whether a negotiated business resolution is preferable to extended litigation.

Our law firm represents clients in technology-related litigation, arbitration, mediation, pre-litigation demands, discovery, and negotiated resolution. Salar Atrizadeh, Esq.’s academic background in Computer Information Systems supports the firm's ability to analyze technical records, work with qualified experts, and explain complex technology issues in clear legal terms.

If you are involved in a dispute concerning quantum hardware, software, cloud access, intellectual property, research collaboration, post-quantum cybersecurity, or another emerging technology, please contact our law firm to discuss the legal options.