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 →Filing growth compares 2021 (61 records) with 2024 (30) — 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 734 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
A bacterial chassis patent claims an engineered microbial host built to carry a gene construct, run a metabolic pathway, or produce a target metabolite under defined culture conditions. The 734 records in scope span filings from 2015 onward, concentrated around gene-construct design, strain engineering and downstream metabolite or therapeutic output rather than raw microbiology. Family-level counting is used throughout this dataset, which discounts continuation filings and multi-jurisdiction duplicates relative to raw document counts.
Filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2021, and has since declined through the last complete filing year on record. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the final one or two years in any chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be — that lag, not a real drop in activity, explains most of the tail.
Two views of the same 734 records: annual filing volume, and the IPC subclasses those filings sit under. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, the class shares below add up to more than the record total — that is expected, not an error.
Filings climbed from 22 in 2017 to a peak of 61 in 2021, then fell to 30 by 2024 — a documented -51% change over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under the usual publication lag and should not be read as a continued slide.
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) covers 59.9% of the 734 records and A61K (medicinal preparations) covers 47.8%, confirming that most claims tie chassis engineering to a therapeutic end use. C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) at 32.6% and A23L (foods) at just 6.8% mark where industrial and food-grade production claims remain comparatively thin.
Shares are the percentage of the 734 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about bacterial chassis patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe filing describes strain improvement through a chromosomal deletion introduced near a target metabolic pathway or biosynthetic gene cluster, sized and positioned to change expression of that cluster in a primary or secondary metabolite-producing strain without disrupting the pathway itself.Filed by Univerza v Ljubljani, published 2025-04-10 — illustrates the current claim style: precise, positional genomic edits near a gene cluster rather than broad host-organism claims.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2011109400A2 | Antibodies reactive with b7-h3, immunologically active fragments thereof and uses thereof | 869 |
| 2 | WO2010080538A1 | Covalent diabodies and uses thereof | 571 |
| 3 | WO2008157379A2 | Covalent diabodies and uses thereof | 406 |
| 4 | WO2013022989A2 | Recombinant production of steviol glycosides | 402 |
| 5 | WO2011153378A1 | Recombinant Production of Steviol Glycosides | 372 |
| 6 | WO2012018687A1 | Covalent diabodies and uses thereof | 314 |
| 7 | US20090060910A1 | Covalent diabodies and uses thereof | 312 |
| 8 | US20100174053A1 | Covalent diabodies and uses thereof | 307 |
| 9 | US20120294796A1 | Antibodies Reactive with B7-H3 and Uses Thereof | 287 |
| 10 | WO2012162068A2 | Deimmunized serum-binding domains and their use for extending serum half-life | 207 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
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 →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 →Three findings from the dataset that change where a competitive or freedom-to-operate search should start.
The five most active assignees hold 427 of the 734 records in scope, and the top ten extend that to 511, or 69.6%. A new entrant filing near the core chassis-engineering claims is filing into occupied space, not a crowded but open field.
Annual filings peaked at 61 in 2021 and had fallen to 30 by 2024, a -51% change over that span. That decline predates the publication-lag window, so it reflects a real pullback in new filing rather than incomplete recent data.
C12N and A61K dominate the claim set, together covering the large majority of records, while A23L food applications sit at just 6.8% and A01H plant-related claims at 4.1%. Chassis engineering aimed at food-grade or agricultural metabolite production carries far less prior art to route around.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to bacterial chassis patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The leader in this ranking holds 260 records against a fifth-place figure of 26 and a tenth-place figure of 15 — a steep drop-off that marks a genuine leadership tier rather than a gradual tail.
The leading assignee's record count is roughly ten times the tenth-place figure of 15, a gap size that is unusual even among concentrated fields and suggests a dominant early filer whose core claims other entrants have had to design around.
Positions five through ten hold between 26 and 15 records each — active, repeat filers rather than one-off entrants. Co-assignee pairings among several of these firms suggest joint development or licensing relationships worth checking before any freedom-to-operate conclusion.
Several of the assignees that built the largest portfolios show zero or a single filing in the latest year on record. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this understates true recent activity, but the drop is consistent across most of the ranked leaders rather than isolated to one firm.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Synlogic Operating Co Inc | 1 | — |
| MacroGenics Inc (US) | 0 | — |
| Evolva SA | 0 | — |
| Eligo Bioscience | 0 | -100% |
| EVOLVA INC | 0 | — |
| The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 0 | — |
| JOHNSON LESLIE S | 0 | — |
| HUANG LING | 0 | — |
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or identifying open claim territory.
With 58.2% of all 734 records held by five assignees, any new filing near chassis-engineering or gene-construct claims should start with a freedom-to-operate read of that tier's granted claims, not a general prior-art sweep.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaA23L food applications and A01H plant-related claims sit well below the C12N and A61K core, at 6.8% and 4.1% of records respectively — worth a targeted search before assuming the space is occupied.
Run a white-space search in EurekaFilings fell from 61 in 2021 to 30 in 2024. Understanding which assignees pulled back versus which kept filing helps separate a maturing sub-field from one where activity has simply moved elsewhere.
Compare assignee momentum in EurekaA bacterial chassis patent claims an engineered microbial host organism designed to carry a gene construct, run a specific metabolic pathway, or produce a target metabolite under defined culture conditions. In this dataset, that includes claims tied to microorganism engineering (IPC C12N), fermentation and enzymatic synthesis (C12P), and, where the host is engineered for a therapeutic output, medicinal preparation claims (A61K). The common thread is that the organism itself, or the genetic construct inside it, is the subject of the claim rather than a downstream chemical process alone.
The assignee ranking behind this dataset covers 734 records, with the leading assignee holding 260 of them against 26 at fifth place and 15 at tenth — a steep drop that marks a genuine leadership tier rather than a flat field of similarly sized filers. The top five assignees combined hold 58.2% of all records in scope, and the top ten hold 69.6%. That concentration means a competitive read of this space should start with the leadership tier's specific claims rather than a broad market scan.
Filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked at 61 filings in 2021, and had fallen to 30 by 2024 — a documented -51% change over that three-year span. That decline is measured against 2024, the most recent year that can be treated as complete; 2025 and 2026 figures will keep rising as publications catch up, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Read the recent years as incomplete rather than as evidence the field has stopped moving.
The clearest gaps sit outside the two dominant IPC classes: C12N (microorganism engineering, 59.9% of records) and A61K (medicinal preparations, 47.8%). Food and beverage applications under A23L cover only 6.8% of records, and plant-related engineering under A01H covers 4.1%, both well below the therapeutic-leaning core. A first claim in these branches — for example, a food-grade production chassis with a specific culture-condition limitation — faces materially less prior art than a general therapeutic chassis claim.
WO2025073895A1, filed by Univerza v Ljubljani and published 2025-04-10, claims strain improvement through a chromosomal deletion introduced near a target metabolic pathway or biosynthetic gene cluster, sized and positioned to alter expression of that cluster without disrupting the pathway. It is a positional-genomic-edit claim rather than a broad host-organism claim, so it primarily constrains other filers working on similarly targeted deletion strategies near biosynthetic gene clusters, not chassis engineering generally. Anyone designing a strain-improvement method with a comparable deletion strategy should read its claim scope closely before relying on a workaround.
Go past this page: query the whole bacterial chassis 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.