Acetogenic Bacteria Promoter Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 76.7% concentration. The top 5 assignees account for 247 of the 322 records in scope — this field is claimed, not open, at the promoter-engineering layer.
- Filings doubled 2021→2024. From 9 to 18 records in three years, with a peak of 54 in 2022, signalling sustained rather than one-off investment.
- C12P and C12N dominate. 93.8% and 92.5% of records respectively sit in fermentation and genetic-engineering classes — electrolytic (C25B) and bioreactor (C12M) claims are comparatively thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (9 records) with 2024 (18) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 322 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent filings at the intersection of acetogenic bacteria and promoter engineering — the regulatory-sequence work (inducible and constitutive promoters, operator sequences, transcription-strength tuning, reporter assays) that determines whether a gas-fermenting microorganism can be pushed toward a target product at commercial titres. The scope spans 322 published records filed against IPC classes covering microorganism engineering, fermentation and enzymatic synthesis, and microbiological assay methods.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real activity; 2024 is the last year that can be read as a complete picture, and the growth figures on this page are anchored there.
Filing trends and technology composition
The dataset spans 322 published records from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, drawn from the IPC classes that govern microorganism engineering and fermentation-based synthesis.
A decade of uneven but rising activity
Annual filings rose from 17 in 2017 to a peak of 54 in 2022, then eased — read the 2025-26 tail as incomplete rather than declining. The clearest complete-year signal is the 2021-to-2024 span, where filings doubled from 9 to 18, consistent with continued investment in gas-fermentation strain engineering rather than a one-off filing wave.
Fermentation and genetic engineering carry the claim weight
C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) each cover more than 92% of the 322 records, confirming that promoter-level work is filed almost entirely as part of broader strain-engineering or bioproduction claims. Electrolytic production (C25B, 11.5%), bioreactor apparatus (C12M, 9.9%) and peptide-related claims (C07K, 7.1%) trail well behind, and animal feed applications (A23K, 3.7%) are a minor but present downstream use case.
Shares are the percentage of the 322 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Acetogenic Bacteria Promoter Engineering with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about acetogenic bacteria promoter engineering and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe documents shaping this field
Optimized genetic tool for modifying bacteria
Filed by IFP Energies Nouvelles, this record describes transformation and genetic modification methods for bacteria in the phylum Firmicutes, built around a nucleic acid sequence that facilitates transformation and enables expression of DNA sequences absent from the wild-type genome. It typifies the toolkit layer beneath promoter-level claims: methods and kits for modifying the genetic material of a target bacterium rather than a specific promoter sequence itself.Abstract trimmed for length; full claims available via the linked record.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20040152159A1 | Materials and methods for the efficient production of acetate and other products | 152 |
| 2 | WO2012135789A2 | Microorganisms for producing methacrylic acid and methacrylate esters and methods related thereto | 131 |
| 3 | WO2017165244A1 | Microorganisms and artificial ecosystems for the production of protein, food, and useful co-products from c1 … | 116 |
| 4 | US20130065279A1 | Microorganisms for producing methacrylic acid and methacrylate esters and methods related thereto | 93 |
| 5 | WO2012018624A2 | Microorganisms and methods for the biosynthesis of aromatics, 2,4-pentadienoate and 1,3-butadiene | 93 |
| 6 | WO2017066498A1 | Genetically engineered bacterium comprising energy-generating fermentation pathway | 81 |
| 7 | WO2018144965A1 | Microbial conversion of co 2 and other c1 substrates to vegan nutrients, fertilizers, biostimulants, and syst… | 77 |
| 8 | US20190390158A1 | Microbial Conversion of CO2 and Other C1 Substrates to Vegan Nutrients, Fertilizers, Biostimulants, and Syste… | 68 |
| 9 | WO2011071682A1 | Methods and organisms for converting synthesis gas or other gaseous carbon sources and methanol to 1,3-butane… | 64 |
| 10 | WO2012177710A1 | Microorganisms for producing butadiene and methods related thereto | 55 |
Citation counts are drawn from a searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a measure of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the data actually shows
Three figures matter more than the rest for anyone deciding where to file or partner next.
Leadership is tight, not fragmented
247 of the 322 records in scope sit with five assignees. A tenth-place holder appears at just 6 records, meaning the drop-off from leader to long tail is steep rather than gradual.
Growth is real but recent-year data is thin
Filings doubled from 9 in 2021 to 18 in 2024, the last year with a reliable count. The apparent falloff in 2025-26 reflects publication lag, not slowing interest.
Fermentation claims dominate the field
Nearly all records carry a C12P or C12N tag, meaning promoter-engineering claims are almost never filed on their own — they ride inside broader fermentation or strain-engineering applications.
Inventor pairs cluster around a small group
The strongest co-filing pairs recur across the same small set of named inventors, suggesting a compact core team behind a large share of the leader's output rather than broad internal diffusion.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to acetogenic bacteria promoter engineering, with the prior art for and against each one.
The competitive set
Filing activity concentrates around gas-fermentation specialists, with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants including universities and individual inventors.
One filer sets the pace
The leading assignee holds 90 of the 322 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 16 — a gap wide enough that any freedom-to-operate review should start with this filer's claim scope specifically.
A steep drop after the leaders
The ranking covers 49 companies; past 10th place (6 records) filings thin quickly into single-digit and single-filing entrants, including academic groups and named individual inventors.
Momentum has cooled among named leaders
Several of the largest historical filers show zero output in the latest tracked year. Given the 18-month publication lag, this is as likely to reflect filings still in the pipeline as an actual pullback.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Genomatica Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Kiverdi Inc | 0 | -100% |
| LanzaTech New Zealand Ltd | 0 | — |
| LanzaTech Inc | 0 | — |
| LANZATECH NZ INC | 0 | — |
| Max Planck Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften eV | 0 | — |
| PHARKYA PRITI | 0 | — |
| BURGARD ANTHONY P | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated core and a thin periphery — the practical next step depends on whether the goal is defensive clearance or offensive filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the leader
With one assignee holding 90 of 322 records, any new promoter-engineering filing should be checked against that portfolio's claim scope first, before the wider ranked field.
Explore assignee claim scope in EurekaProbe the under-claimed branches
Electrolytic co-production and bioreactor-integrated promoter control show comparatively low coverage relative to the fermentation core — a faster path to allowable claims than the crowded center.
Map white space in EurekaTrack the 2024-25 filing gap as it fills in
Publication lag means the apparent 2025-26 slowdown is incomplete data, not a real trend; revisit filing counts as later publications land.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads with 90 of the 322 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked holder at 16. The top five assignees combined account for 247 records, or 76.7% of the field, so leadership is concentrated rather than spread across many equally-sized players. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should treat that leading portfolio as the first thing to review, not one entry among many.
Yes, based on the last complete years of data: filings rose from 9 in 2021 to 18 in 2024, a doubling over three years, with a peak of 54 records in 2022. The 2025 and 2026 counts look lower, but publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so those recent years are undercounted rather than genuinely quiet. The honest read is sustained growth through 2024 with an incomplete tail after it.
C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) dominate, each covering more than 92% of the 322 records in scope. Electrolytic production methods (C25B) appear in 11.5% of records, bioreactor apparatus (C12M) in 9.9%, and peptide-related claims (C07K) in 7.1%. Because a single record can carry several class tags, these percentages add up to well over 100% and should not be read as market share splits.
The technology composition data shows electrolytic co-production pathways, bioreactor-integrated promoter control and peptide or protein reporter fusions all sitting far below the fermentation and genetic-engineering core in filing volume. These are not proven-safe white space — they are simply less crowded relative to the dominant classes, and a first filer there faces less prior art density. Any claim drafted in these areas should still be checked against the leading assignee's broader portfolio, since large filers often cover adjacent ground even where their core claims lie elsewhere.
With the top 5 assignees holding 76.7% of all 322 records and the top 10 holding 89.1%, this field is more concentrated than many synthetic-biology niches, where filings are often spread across dozens of academic and corporate players with no single dominant holder. The ranked list covers 49 companies total, but the steep drop from 16 records at fifth place to 6 at tenth place shows the concentration is front-loaded rather than a gradual taper. That pattern typically signals a field built around a small number of foundational platform patents rather than many independent inventions.
Research Acetogenic Bacteria Promoter Engineering in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole acetogenic bacteria promoter engineering corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.