Agricultural Biostimulant Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Filing has flattened, not accelerated. annual filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 26 in 2024, but the 2022 midpoint of 11 shows growth was already levelling before the peak.
- India rivals the PCT route. 16 filings went direct to India's patent office against 21 via WIPO, well ahead of Europe, the US or Canada individually — a sign of where commercial deployment is being protected first.
- Co-filing is rare and concentrated. only 3 co-assignee pairs exist in the whole dataset, and one pairing alone accounts for 7 joint filings — most applicants are filing alone.
What this landscape covers
This review tracks 84 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that claim biostimulant compositions or methods — seaweed extract, humic substances, microbial inoculants and stress-tolerance formulations — indexed under agrochemical and fertiliser IPC classes. The search combines free-text biostimulant terminology with classification codes spanning A01N (biocides), C05F (organic fertilisers) and A01P (pesticide activity), so it captures both the crop-protection framing and the fertiliser framing that this technology sits between.
Because publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in the trend chart understate actual filing activity; the true picture for those years will only firm up as later publications land.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 84-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those filings distribute across the IPC subclasses that define the biostimulant category.
A peak in 2024, not a straight climb
Filings moved from 2 in 2017 to a high of 26 in 2024, but the 2022 midpoint of 11 sits well below a straight-line trajectory to that peak — the growth curve is uneven rather than steadily compounding, and the partial 2026 count of 10 should be read against the publication lag rather than as a slowdown.
Biocide and fertiliser classes dominate
A01N (75 records) and C05F (50) between them cover most of the dataset, with A01P (46) close behind — confirming that biostimulant claims are drafted primarily as agrochemical or organic-fertiliser compositions rather than under horticulture-specific codes; A01G appears in only 7 records.
Shares are the percentage of the 84 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Agricultural Biostimulant Technology Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about agricultural biostimulant technology landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
WO2026062693A1 — A biostimulant composition and method of preparation thereof
The present invention provides a bio-stimulant composition for promoting plant growth and development. The biostimulant composition comprises seaweed extract, milk solids, one or more amino acid and optionally one or more of the ingredients selected from protein hydrolysate, humic substance, macronutrient and micronutrient. The present invention also provides a method for preparing the bio-stimulant composition.Filed by an individual applicant rather than a corporate assignee, illustrating how open this filing category remains to smaller entrants.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20230172194A1 | Composition including effervescent agents, biostimulant, nutrient, and pesticide | 25 |
| 2 | CN109380243A | 杀菌组合物及其应用 | 9 |
| 3 | CN113788722A | 一种生物刺激素及其制备方法 | 4 |
| 4 | CN109984149A | 一种利用氨基酸发酵尾液制备生物刺激素的方法 | 4 |
| 5 | WO2021159220A1 | Biostimulant based on the bacterium pseudomonas lini strain s57 and method of application for promoting plant… | 3 |
| 6 | WO2025131933A1 | Biostimulant composition and methods of use | 2 |
| 7 | US20240049727A1 | Biostimulant and method for stimulating plant growth | 2 |
| 8 | US20240065262A1 | Composition including effervescent agents, biostimulant, nutrient, and pesticide | 2 |
| 9 | WO2024019053A1 | Plant growth promoter | 2 |
| 10 | WO2025210150A1 | Fungicidal composition | 1 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply by virtue of longer exposure; treat them as a measure of influence within this searched corpus, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 numbers indicate
Three patterns stand out once the filing trend, geography and citation data are read together.
Growth already flattening before the peak
The 2022 midpoint of 11 filings sits below where a compounding trend to the 2024 peak of 26 would put it, meaning the acceleration was concentrated in 2023-2024 rather than sustained across the whole period.
India is a primary filing destination, not an afterthought
With 16 direct filings, India sits ahead of Europe (9), the US (9), Canada (6) and Mexico (6) individually — applicants are protecting biostimulant formulations in a major agricultural market directly rather than relying solely on PCT entry.
Filing alone is the norm
Only three co-assignee pairs appear across 84 families, and one pairing accounts for 7 of the joint filings recorded — collaborative filing is the exception in this space, not the pattern.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to agricultural biostimulant technology landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and who has slowed
Recent-year momentum diverges sharply from historical filing volume: some previously active assignees show zero filings in the latest year, while one has the largest single-year count in the dataset.
Acadian Seaplants is still filing actively
Acadian Seaplants recorded 5 filings in the latest year, the highest recent-year count of any assignee in this dataset, and also appears in a co-assignee pairing with UIST ASCO worth 3 joint filings.
Yara and Natural Plant Protection show zero recent filings
Yara International and Natural Plant Protection Ltd both moved from prior activity to 0 filings in the latest year, a -100% year-on-year change for each — worth checking whether this reflects a strategy shift or simply publication timing.
UPM and Green Innovation file jointly at unusual depth
The pairing of UPM (Finland) and Green Innovation accounts for 7 joint filings, by far the strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset against a backdrop where only three such pairs exist at all.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Acadian Seaplants Limited | 5 | — |
| Verdesian Life Sciences, LLC | 2 | — |
| Yara International | 0 | -100% |
| UPM-Kymmene Corporation | 0 | — |
| Green Innovation Ltd. | 0 | — |
| NATURAL PLANT PROTECTION LTD | 0 | -100% |
| Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| UIST ASCO LTD | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific follow-up questions for teams deciding where to file or where freedom-to-operate risk concentrates.
Check India filing strategy specifically
With 16 direct India filings second only to the PCT route, teams targeting that market should review the India-specific claim scope rather than assuming PCT coverage is representative.
Explore India filings in EurekaWatch the stalled assignees
Two previously active filers show a -100% year-on-year drop; confirming whether this is a strategy change or a publication-lag artefact matters before drawing conclusions about competitive retreat.
Track assignee momentum in EurekaProbe the under-claimed IPC branches
A01G, C05B and C05C carry far fewer filings than A01N, C05F and A01P — worth a targeted search to confirm whether that gap is genuine white space or simply a classification artefact.
Run a white-space search in EurekaCommon questions on biostimulant patents
This dataset covers 84 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from a search combining biostimulant terminology with agrochemical and fertiliser classification codes (A01N, C05F, A01P and related subclasses). That figure reflects families, which is the fairer unit for landscape analysis because it neutralises duplicate filings of the same invention across jurisdictions. It should be treated as a snapshot of a specific search scope rather than a count of every biostimulant-related filing worldwide.
Filing rose from 2 families in 2017 to a peak of 26 in 2024, but the midpoint year of 2022 recorded only 11 — well below what a steady upward trend to the 2024 peak would predict. That pattern suggests the growth was concentrated in a short window rather than sustained across the whole period. The partial 2026 count of 10 should not be read as a decline outright, since publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months.
The PCT route (WIPO) leads with 21 filings, followed closely by India with 16 — a notably strong showing for a single national office. Europe and the United States each recorded 9, with Canada and Mexico at 6 apiece. The strength of direct India filings suggests applicants are protecting formulations in that market specifically, not just relying on PCT national-phase entry.
Almost always alone. Across the full 84-family dataset there are only 3 co-assignee pairings, and one of them — a pairing involving UPM and Green Innovation — accounts for 7 joint filings on its own, making it a clear outlier rather than the norm. For most assignees in this landscape, expect single-applicant filings rather than joint ventures or shared IP arrangements.
WO2026062693A1, filed by an individual applicant, claims a biostimulant composition combining seaweed extract, milk solids and amino acids, optionally with protein hydrolysate, humic substance and macro/micronutrients, along with a preparation method. It matters as a recent representative filing because it shows the multi-ingredient combination approach — seaweed plus amino acid plus optional humic substance — that characterises much of this corpus, rather than single-active-ingredient claims. Anyone drafting around it should look closely at the specific ingredient combination and preparation steps claimed, since combination claims of this type can be narrower than they first appear.
Research Agricultural Biostimulant Technology Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole agricultural biostimulant technology landscape 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.