Animal Feed Additive Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has plateaued, not grown. activity peaked at 115 families in 2024 after a flat run from a 2022 midpoint of 99 — this is a mature, occupied field rather than an emerging one.
- China and the US dominate filing venues. with 200 and 170 records respectively, well ahead of the EPO's 164, so freedom-to-operate work has to clear at least three major offices.
- Momentum has shifted to fewer active filers. several formerly prominent assignees show 0 filings or a -50% to -100% year-on-year drop in the latest year, while only one tracked filer is still growing.
What this landscape covers
This review covers 980 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine feed additive or antibiotic-alternative claims with gut health, feed conversion ratio, enzyme stability in pellet form, probiotic viability or residue regulation language, classified under animal feed (A23K) and medicinal preparation (A61K) codes. The corpus is dominated by A23K (972 of 980 records), with a substantial secondary cluster in A61K medicinal preparations (280) and microorganism-related classes C12N and C12R (153 and 110), showing that most claims are drafted as feed compositions first and therapeutic or microbial mechanism second.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend line understate real activity; the plateau visible from 2022 onward is the more reliable read than the apparent recent-year drop-off.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same 980-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how claims are distributed across the underlying IPC subclasses.
A plateau after 2022, not a growth curve
Filings rose from 51 in 2017 to a peak of 115 in 2024, but the 2022 midpoint of 99 sits close to the peak, indicating flat-to-declining growth rather than an accelerating field. The lower 2025-2026 counts partly reflect publication lag rather than a real collapse in filing.
Feed composition claims dominate the classification mix
A23K appears in 972 of 980 records, meaning almost every family in this corpus is drafted primarily as an animal feed composition. The next largest blocks, A61K (280) and C12N (153), point to a secondary but substantial layer of claims built around medicinal framing and microbial or genetic-engineering mechanisms, with peptide chemistry (C07K, 26) the smallest and most narrowly claimed branch.
Shares are the percentage of the 980 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Animal Feed Additives and Nutrition with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about animal feed additives and nutrition and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records shaping this space
US20190076488A1 — Feed additive composition (Agtech Products)
A feed additive composition comprising a direct fed microbial in combination with a protease, a xylanase, an amylase and a phytase, claimed for improving feed conversion ratio, digestibility, nitrogen retention and weight gain, and for avoiding the negative effects of necrotic enteritis in a subject.Combines a live microbial strain with a four-enzyme cocktail in a single composition claim — the enzyme combination and its FCR/necrotic-enteritis use claims are the parts most likely to constrain new filers.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2004026334A1 | Antimicrobial composition and method for use | 105 |
| 2 | US20140234279A1 | Feed additive composition | 60 |
| 3 | US20140037582A1 | Feed Additive Composition | 55 |
| 4 | CN101558824A | 一种复合微生态制剂 | 48 |
| 5 | US20150216203A1 | Feed additive composition | 47 |
| 6 | WO2017083196A1 | Feed additive composition | 40 |
| 7 | JP2014507946A | 飼料添加用組成物 | 39 |
| 8 | US20150079058A1 | Antibiotic sensitive bacillus strains having antimicrobial effect against e. coli and clostridium perfringens… | 33 |
| 9 | US20130330308A1 | Feed additive composition | 28 |
| 10 | WO2014202716A1 | Methods and compositions to improve the nutritional value of lignocellulosic biomass | 27 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations within the searched corpus; treat this as a measure of influence on subsequent drafting, not of present-day commercial 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 data means for filing strategy
Read together, the filing trend, technology mix and office concentration point to a field where the core feed-composition claim space is heavily occupied and differentiation has moved to secondary mechanisms.
Growth has stalled since the 2022 midpoint
With 99 families in 2022 and a peak of only 115 two years later, the field is not compounding. New entrants are more likely competing for space inside an already dense prior-art base than opening new ground.
Nearly every filing is anchored in feed composition claims
The near-universal presence of A23K classification means differentiation increasingly happens in the secondary classes — microbial mechanism (C12N/C12R) or therapeutic framing (A61P) — rather than in the base feed-composition claim itself.
Three-office coverage is the practical baseline
China, the United States and the EPO each carry over 160 records, with WIPO PCT filings (108) bridging them. A freedom-to-operate check limited to one jurisdiction will miss the bulk of the active claim set.
Only one tracked filer is still expanding
Nutreco IP Assets BV grew filings to 4 in the latest year while several other previously active assignees, including two Chinese and one European filer, recorded year-on-year drops of 50% to 100% or filed nothing at all.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to animal feed additives and nutrition, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and who has gone quiet
Filing activity is split between a small number of multinational feed and enzyme suppliers with sustained programmes and a long tail of individual and regional filers whose activity has cooled sharply in the most recent year.
Nutreco IP Assets BV
The only assignee in the tracked momentum set still growing filings year over year, with 4 families in the latest year, suggesting an active rather than defensive filing programme.
Formerly active assignees pulling back
Novozymes, Anipha Tech and DSM IP Assets Management all show sharp year-on-year declines or zero latest-year filings, a pattern consistent with a maturing claim space where incremental filing no longer adds defensible ground.
DSM and Novozymes co-file at scale
The strongest co-assignee pair in the dataset links DSM IP Assets Management and Novozymes across 17 shared families, the clearest evidence of a sustained joint filing relationship in this corpus.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| NUTRECO IP ASSETS BV | 4 | +33% |
| Novozymes | 1 | -50% |
| ANIPHA TECH PTY LTD | 1 | -50% |
| International N&H Denmark ApS | 0 | -100% |
| PENG XIANFENG | 0 | — |
| DSM IP Assets B.V. | 0 | -100% |
| Chr. Hansen A/S | 0 | — |
| PMI Nutrition, LLC | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate clearance, white-space identification, or tracking a specific competitor's programme.
Run a freedom-to-operate check across three offices
With China, the US and the EPO each holding more than 160 records, a single-jurisdiction search will materially understate risk for any composition built around the core A23K claim language.
Check claim overlap in EurekaTrack the cooling assignees for expiring or lapsed rights
Several previously active filers show a 50-100% year-on-year drop in filings, which can signal a shift toward licensing, abandonment, or a pivot to trade-secret protection rather than continued patenting.
Monitor assignee activity in EurekaDraft around the under-claimed branches
Peptide-based actives and enzyme-stability-in-pellet claims carry far fewer records than the core feed-composition space, making them a more tractable starting point for a defensible new filing.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on feed additive patents
The dataset shows filing concentrated among a small group of multinational feed and enzyme suppliers, with DSM IP Assets Management and Novozymes standing out for having co-filed 17 shared families, the strongest co-assignee link in the corpus. Beyond that core group there is a long tail of individual filers and regional Chinese feed companies with much smaller, often single-family, filing histories. Because momentum has shifted recently, current filing volume matters more than historical patent counts when judging who is actually active today.
Growth has flattened rather than continued: filings rose from 51 in 2017 to a peak of 115 in 2024, but the 2022 figure of 99 sits close to that peak, meaning most of the growth happened earlier in the period. The apparent drop in 2025-2026 is partly an artefact of publication lag, since patent applications typically publish around 18 months after filing. Taken together, this points to a mature field where the core claim space is already well occupied rather than one still expanding rapidly.
Within the tracked IPC classes, peptide and protein-based actives (C07K) and acyclic carrier compounds (C07C) carry far fewer records than the dominant feed-composition class A23K, which appears in 972 of 980 filings. Enzyme stability during pelleting, and probiotic viability under thermal processing, are described as claim elements less often than they appear as abstract goals, suggesting room for more specific process claims. These branches are a more realistic starting point for a new, defensible filing than the crowded core composition space.
This filing from Agtech Products claims a feed additive composition combining a direct fed microbial with a four-enzyme cocktail — a protease, a xylanase, an amylase and a phytase — for uses including improved feed conversion ratio, digestibility, nitrogen retention and avoidance of necrotic enteritis effects. The breadth comes from stacking a live microbial with multiple enzyme functions and multiple claimed physiological outcomes in one composition. Anyone drafting a similar multi-enzyme-plus-microbial composition for comparable uses should check this filing's specific enzyme combination and claimed outcomes closely before finalising claim language.
China leads with 200 records, followed by the United States at 170 and the European Patent Office at 164, with WIPO PCT filings at 108 acting as a bridge into national phases. Australia and Canada follow at 69 and 68 respectively. This spread means that a competitive or freedom-to-operate review limited to a single office, particularly the US alone, will miss a substantial share of the active filings in this field.
Research Animal Feed Additives and Nutrition in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole animal feed additives and nutrition 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.