Pea Protein Fractionation Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
A patent landscape review of pea protein fractionation: who holds the most patent families, how filings have trended since the 2021 peak, which IPC classes carry the technical weight, and where claim space remains open.
Filing growth = 2021 (50 records) → 2024 (1); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 249 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Pea protein fractionation separates protein fractions — globulin, albumin and their sub-fractions — from whole pea flour or slurry using techniques such as isoelectric precipitation, membrane filtration, chromatography and simulated moving bed (SMB) separation. This landscape covers 249 published records filed between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, spanning food-grade extraction processes, functional protein matrices, and cross-over claims into medicinal and animal-feed applications. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real filing activity.
The dataset draws on records filed across major receiving offices including Europe, the United States, WIPO's PCT route, Australia, Canada and India, reflecting a technology that is prosecuted internationally rather than in a single home jurisdiction. Patent families, not raw document counts, are the basis for the assignee ranking, which neutralises the effect of multi-jurisdiction filing by any single applicant.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 249-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the technical substance of the claims.
A sharp pullback from a single peak year
Filings rose from a single record in 2017 to a peak of 50 in 2021, then fell to 1 record by 2024 — a -98% swing across that three-year span. That is the last year the trend can be read as complete; 2025 and 2026 figures will continue to fill in as publications catch up with filing dates, so the recent dip should not be read as the technology cooling off.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
Protein chemistry classes dominate over food-format classes
A23J (proteins and food peptides) and A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) each cover a majority of records at 72.7% and 62.7% of the 249 records in scope respectively, confirming that most claims are anchored in protein separation and food application chemistry. Secondary classes — A23C dairy at 29.3%, C07K peptides at 15.3%, C12N microorganisms at 10.0% — mark smaller but active adjacent branches, while A23G confectionery and A23K animal feed each sit at 7.2%, indicating format extensions rather than core separation art.
Shares are the percentage of the 249 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Alternative Proteins: Pea Protein Fractionation Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about alternative proteins: pea protein fractionation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
US20170065906A1 — Continuous process for separation of proteins (Orochem Technologies, 2017-03-09)
The filing discloses a continuous simulated moving bed (SMB) chromatography process for separating or extracting proteins — including heme protein and plant protein — from a low-grade mixture containing other proteins, impurities and salts. The process combines feed loading, adsorbent washing, product elution, adsorbent regeneration and adsorbent equilibration steps, using a proprietary strong anion exchange resin adsorbent.Abstract shown as filed; truncated where the source record is truncated.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2013010042A1 | Methods and compositions for consumables | 112 |
| 2 | US5912016A | Particles of crosslinked plant proteins and the process for their preparation | 64 |
| 3 | US20060057131A1 | Malleable protein matrix and uses thereof | 45 |
| 4 | WO2003053158A2 | Malleable protein matrix and uses thereof | 39 |
| 5 | WO2003014150A2 | Fusion proteins for insect control | 33 |
| 6 | WO2021174226A1 | Materials and methods for protein production | 21 |
| 7 | WO2018177717A1 | Meat alternative comprising aqueous gelling composition | 17 |
| 8 | US20190216126A1 | Methods for making plant protein concentrates | 15 |
| 9 | US20210227849A1 | Compositions and methods for frozen confections | 14 |
| 10 | US20220015387A1 | Methods for the preparation of a plant protein composition | 13 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial importance.
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 means for a filing decision
Four read-outs from the concentration, technology and citation data that matter for a freedom-to-operate or whitespace assessment.
The top of the field is concentrated, the rest is a long tail
Five assignees account for 43.0% of all 249 records in scope, and the top ten extend that to 63.1%. Below that, the ranking runs to 88 companies, most holding only a handful of families — a classic dense-top, long-tail structure where new entrants compete for space outside the leaders' core claims.
Activity has pulled back sharply from its 2021 peak
Filings rose from a single record in 2017 to 50 in 2021, then dropped to 1 by 2024 — a -98% swing. That is a genuine retreat from the peak filing year, not evidence that the field is dead, since 2025-2026 counts are still incomplete due to publication lag.
Core separation chemistry outweighs peptide-level claims
A23J (proteins and food peptides) appears on 72.7% of the 249 records, more than four times the 15.3% carrying C07K peptide-specific classification. Claim density sits on extraction and fractionation process chemistry, not on molecular-level peptide engineering, which is comparatively lightly claimed.
Citation weight sits on older foundational filings
The most-cited record in the corpus, WO2013010042A1, carries 112 citations — well ahead of the next most-cited filing at 64. High citation counts here mark historical influence within this searched set, not necessarily the strongest current commercial position.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to alternative proteins: pea protein fractionation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace identification, or competitive tracking.
Map claims against the leaders' core filings
With 43.0% of records held by five assignees, a freedom-to-operate review should start by pulling the independent claims of the leaders' most-cited families before drafting around them.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaWatch the secondary IPC branches
C12N (10.0%), A23G (7.2%) and A23K (7.2%) are lightly claimed relative to A23J and A23L. These branches are worth monitoring for new entrants building on core fractionation IP.
Track emerging filings in EurekaRe-run the trend once 2025-2026 fill in
Because publication lag understates the last one to two years, a follow-up pull in 12 months will give a truer read on whether the post-2021 pullback continues or reverses.
Set up a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions on pea protein fractionation patents
The assignee ranking covers 88 companies, and it is a long tail rather than a single dominant holder: the top five combined account for 43.0% of all 249 records in scope, and the top ten extend that to 63.1%. That means roughly a third of the field is spread across 78 further companies, many with only one or two filings. Anyone assessing this space should treat the leaders' filings as the core prior art to clear, but should not assume the field is a two-company race.
Filings rose from a single record in 2017 to a peak of 50 in 2021, then fell to 1 record by 2024, a -98% change across that span. However, 2024 is the last year that can be read as complete, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures will keep rising as more records publish. The honest read is a sharp pullback from an unusually active 2021, not a technology that has stopped attracting filings.
A23J, covering proteins and food peptides, appears on 72.7% of the 249 records in scope, making it the dominant class by a wide margin. A23L, foods and non-alcoholic beverages, follows at 62.7%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these figures overlap rather than sum to 100%, and they signal that most patent activity centres on separation and food-application chemistry rather than the animal-feed (A23K, 7.2%) or confectionery (A23G, 7.2%) branches.
US20170065906A1, filed by Orochem Technologies and published 2017-03-09, discloses a continuous simulated moving bed (SMB) chromatography process for separating proteins, including plant and heme protein, from a low-grade mixture containing impurities and salts. The process is built around a proprietary strong anion exchange resin adsorbent and a defined cycle of feed loading, washing, elution, regeneration and equilibration steps. Anyone building a continuous chromatographic separation process for pea or other plant protein should review this filing's claim scope closely, since it targets the process architecture rather than a single product composition.
The technology composition data shows secondary IPC branches such as C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering, 10.0% of records), A23G (confectionery, 7.2%) and A23K (animal feed, 7.2%) are far less claimed than the core A23J and A23L classes. That gap suggests fewer entrenched claims around biological or enzymatic fractionation routes and format-specific applications outside mainstream food use. Co-assignee activity is also thin, with only 10 co-assignee pairs identified across the dataset, indicating limited collaborative filing and room for new joint development claims.
Research Alternative Proteins: Pea Protein Fractionation Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole alternative proteins: pea protein fractionation patent 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.