Biopesticide Formulation Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- 51.8% concentration. The top five assignees combined hold 44 of the 85 records in scope — just over half the field sits with five owners.
- A01N dominates the class map. 94.1% of records carry an A01N biocide classification, while only 11.8% touch C07K peptide or C12P fermentation claims — formulation chemistry, not biology, is where most claims sit.
- India leads filing volume. India is the single largest receiving office at 21 filings, ahead of the EPO and United States at 10 each — registration activity is following production geography, not just R&D geography.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 85 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Biopesticide formulation and shelf-life patenting sits at the intersection of microbiology and materials science: claims cover how a living spore, fungal propagule or protein toxin is stabilised, carried and protected from the point of manufacture through to field application. The 85 records in scope span carrier materials, ultraviolet protectants, water-activity control and field-efficacy testing methods — the practical problems that determine whether a microbial pesticide survives storage and still performs once sprayed. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent filing year in this dataset understates real activity.
The picture that emerges is a field with genuine concentration at the top but a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants — 55 companies appear in the ranking, and more than half of the record volume sits with the top five.
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 composition
Two views of the same 85 records: how filing activity has moved over time, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing activity by year
Filings were negligible before recent years and peaked at 8 in 2024, the highest single year in the dataset. 2026 shows only 1 filing so far, which reflects the publication lag rather than a slowdown — filings made in the last 18 months are still working through examination and have not all published yet.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A01N (biocides) appears on 94.1% of the 85 records, confirming that formulation and delivery claims dominate over biological composition claims. C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) at 28.2% and the smaller C07K, C12P and C12R clusters, each at 11.8%, show that strain-level and fermentation claims are a minority of the field — most of the patenting effort goes into how the organism is packaged and protected, not what the organism is.
Shares are the percentage of the 85 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Biopesticide Formulation and Shelf Life with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about biopesticide formulation and shelf life and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the field
AU1992010160A1 — Pathogenic fungal preparation for pest control
Filed by the University of Florida in 1992, this record describes a process and method for producing and using a pathogenic fungal preparation for pest control — part of a small family of related filings from the same period that anchors much of the early citation activity in this dataset.Priority date 1992-07-16. Part of the same family lineage as the two most-cited US and EP records in this landscape.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5360607A | Method for production and use of pathogenic fungal preparation for pest control | 82 |
| 2 | US5413784A | Biopesticide composition and process for controlling insect pests | 48 |
| 3 | WO1992011856A1 | Biopesticide composition and process for insect pest control | 24 |
| 4 | EP0494592A1 | A process and method for production and use of pathogenic fungal preparation for insect control | 14 |
| 5 | GB2481307A | Controlling arthropod infestation with entomopathogenic fungus | 13 |
| 6 | WO2011157983A1 | Control of arthropod infestation using particles comprising an entomopathogen and wax | 12 |
| 7 | US20150040629A1 | Novel Mycorrhizae-based Biofertilizer Compositions & Method for mass production & formulations of Same | 9 |
| 8 | WO2002013606A2 | Improved insecticidal bacteria, and methods for making and using them | 6 |
| 9 | US6720167B1 | Insecticidal bacteria, and methods for making and using them | 6 |
| 10 | WO2013098829A1 | Novel mycorrhizae-based biofertilizer compositions and method for mass production and formulations of same | 3 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; treat them as a marker of foundational status, not current 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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once family counts, classes and geography are read together.
Ownership is concentrated but not closed
The top five assignees combined account for 44 of the 85 records in scope. That leaves roughly half the field distributed across a long tail of 50 further companies and individual inventors, several with only one or two filings — a sign that entry is still possible outside the leading cluster.
Formulation, not biology, is the crowded zone
Nearly all records carry an A01N biocide classification, meaning carrier, protectant and delivery claims are the densest part of the field. The much smaller C07K and C12P shares suggest protein- and fermentation-level claims are comparatively less contested.
Registration follows production markets
India receives more filings than the EPO or United States individually, with Australia, WIPO and Canada each in the high single digits. For a company assessing freedom to operate, the receiving-office spread matters as much as the assignee ranking.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to biopesticide formulation and shelf life, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where the gaps are
The assignee ranking covers 55 companies counted by records — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the full set the data returns.
A single leader, then a fast drop-off
The leading assignee holds 12 records, more than double the fifth-place assignee's 6. That gap, combined with a tenth-place count of 5, shows a steep early curve that flattens quickly into a broad tail.
A small cluster of repeat co-filers
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairs linked by 6 to 7 shared records. This points to a handful of long-running institutional or inventor partnerships rather than a broadly collaborative field.
Recent-year activity has cooled among the leaders
Every one of the top-ranked assignees shows zero filings in the latest year of the dataset. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects filings still in the pipeline rather than a genuine stop, but it means the visible leaderboard is not currently being extended by its historical leaders.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Exosect Limited | 0 | — |
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | — |
| Croda International Plc | 0 | — |
| W.R. Grace & Co. | 0 | — |
| University of Florida | 0 | — |
| CHANDLER LAURENCE D | 0 | — |
| WRIGHT JAMES E | 0 | — |
| UPL Europe Supply Chain GmbH | 0 | -100% |
Turning this landscape into a filing decision
A static count of records is a starting point, not a conclusion. The next step is usually claim-level comparison against the specific carrier, protectant or viability method under development.
Check freedom to operate against the leaders
With 51.8% of records held by five assignees, a new formulation claim should be checked directly against their granted claims before any filing decision, not just against the aggregate class counts.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaProbe the under-claimed branches
Water-activity control and UV-protectant coatings show thinner coverage than the core A01N cluster. That gap is worth testing with a targeted prior-art search before assuming it is open.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on biopesticide formulation patents
The dataset's leading assignee holds 12 records, noticeably ahead of the fifth-place assignee at 6 and tenth place at 5. The top five assignees combined account for 44 of the 85 records in scope, or 51.8% of the field, which means ownership is concentrated but not closed — a long tail of roughly 50 further companies and individual inventors holds the remainder. Anyone entering this space should check the leading assignees' granted claims specifically, since aggregate class data will not reveal claim-level overlap.
A01N, the biocide and agrochemical classification, appears on 94.1% of the 85 records in scope, making formulation, carrier and delivery claims the densest part of the field by a wide margin. C12N, covering microorganisms and genetic engineering, appears on 28.2% of records, while C07K, C12P and C12R each sit around 11.8%. In practice this means the crowded ground is how a microbial or protein-based active is stabilised and delivered, not the underlying organism or protein chemistry itself.
Water-activity control in dry formulations, UV-protectant coatings for spore stability, and planting-integrated delivery methods classified under A01C all show comparatively thin coverage next to the dominant A01N cluster. These are not proven-empty spaces, but the class distribution suggests less claim density than the core carrier and formulation art. A first claim here would need to specify the mechanism precisely — for example a defined water-activity range paired with a named carrier chemistry — rather than a broad stability or protection claim.
Filing activity was negligible in the earliest years covered by this dataset and rose to a peak of 8 filings in 2024, the highest single year recorded. The most recent year shows only 1 filing, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than a real drop-off — filings from the last year and a half are still working through the pipeline. A reliable read on the true trajectory of recent activity will not be possible until those filings publish.
India leads with 21 filings, ahead of the European Patent Office and the United States, which each show 10. Australia and the WIPO PCT route each show 9, and Canada shows 8. This spread suggests filers are registering protection in markets tied to agricultural production and use, not solely in the jurisdictions where the underlying R&D originates, which matters for anyone assessing where enforcement risk actually sits.
Research Biopesticide Formulation and Shelf Life in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole biopesticide formulation and shelf life 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.