Cell Disruption Bead Milling Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 30.0% of all 300 records sit with just five assignees, yet the ranked list runs to 100 companies — a dense top with a long single-filer tail.
- Filing peaked in 2023 at 26 records and the 2021→2024 comparison shows 0% net growth, so the field has plateaued rather than accelerated.
- C12N dominates at 94.7% of records while mixing and stirring apparatus (B01F, 12.3%) and food-grade extraction (A23L, 10.7%) sit far thinner — a gap for process-hardware claims.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 300 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 300 published records filed against cell disruption, cell lysis and cell homogenization methods that reference bead size, bead loading, rotor speed, milling time, heat generation or cell breakage, classified under microorganism/genetic engineering (C12N), bioreactor apparatus (B02C) or physical/chemical process apparatus (B01J). The scope spans filing years 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, capturing both the core biological extraction methods and the mechanical milling hardware used to achieve them.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend line will read lower than the underlying filing activity actually was — a pattern to keep in mind before reading 2025 or 2026 as a decline.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 300-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how records distribute across the IPC subclasses that define the field's technical boundaries.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose from 7 in 2017 to a peak of 26 in 2023, the field's highest single year so far. The 2021-to-2024 comparison — 2 records to 2 records — shows 0% net growth over that three-year span, consistent with a field that has settled into a plateau after its early build-up rather than one still accelerating.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) appears in 94.7% of the 300 records in scope, confirming that most filings frame cell disruption as a biological extraction step rather than a standalone mechanical process. C12M (bioreactors, 27.0%) and C12P (fermentation, 26.3%) follow at a considerable distance, with mixing apparatus (B01F, 12.3%) and food applications (A23L, 10.7%) thinner still — those lower shares mark where hardware- and application-specific claims are less contested.
Shares are the percentage of the 300 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cell Disruption Bead Milling with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cell disruption bead milling and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
Methods of improving intracellular biomolecule extraction yield and methods of cell lysis (US20230203428A1)
The present invention relates to methods of improving cell lysis procedures and yields of intracellular biomolecules extracted from biomass. The methods comprise storing the microbial cells in ultra-low temperature (ULT) conditions for at least 10 minutes prior to lysing the cells.Filed by Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of Arizona State University, published 2023-06-29 — a university-held filing that ties a simple cold-storage pretreatment step to lysis yield, rather than claiming milling hardware itself.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050170479A1 | Method for producing lipids by liberation from biomass | 306 |
| 2 | US6043066A | Cell separation using electric fields | 298 |
| 3 | US7238522B2 | Devices and methods for biomaterial production | 248 |
| 4 | US5374522A | Method for releasing RNA and DNA from cells | 169 |
| 5 | US6274726B1 | Pressure-enhanced extraction and purification | 149 |
| 6 | US20030199050A1 | Cell separation using electric fields | 112 |
| 7 | WO2003008636A2 | Universal method and composition for the rapid lysis of cells for the release of nucleic acids and their dete… | 112 |
| 8 | US4683293A | Purification of pichia produced lipophilic proteins | 103 |
| 9 | US6120985A | Pressure-enhanced extraction and purification | 102 |
| 10 | US6111096A | Nucleic acid isolation and purification | 101 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within this searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not as a ranking of current technical 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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Reading concentration, technology mix and citation patterns together points to where claim space is occupied and where it is not.
A dense top, a long tail beneath it
The leader holds 24 records and fifth place holds 13 — a real gap within the top five, not a flat plateau. Below that, the ranking extends across 100 companies, most with only a handful of filings, which means the field is not a two-player contest even though the top five account for 30.0% of all records.
Plateau, not decline
2023 remains the peak filing year at 26 records, and the 2021-to-2024 window shows no net change. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as still filling in under publication lag rather than reading them as a drop-off.
Biological framing dominates over hardware claims
Almost every record touches C12N's microorganism and genetic-engineering claims, while apparatus-specific classes like B01F (mixing, 12.3%) and B02C-adjacent milling hardware sit far thinner. Claims anchored purely in mechanical bead-mill design face less prior art than claims wrapped around the biological extraction outcome.
Europe and the US carry the filing weight
Europe (73) and the United States (69) lead receiving-office counts, with WIPO/PCT filings (45) showing a meaningful share of applicants keeping international options open. Australia and Canada trail at 28 each.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cell disruption bead milling, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds ground, and where they are not filing
The ranked list covers 100 companies by record count. A handful of names sit clearly ahead, with most of the field made up of single- or low-digit filers — a structure that rewards checking any specific competitor individually rather than assuming dominance by a small clique.
A clear leader, not a runaway one
The top-ranked assignee holds 24 records against a fifth-place count of 13 and a tenth-place count of 8 — a steep early drop-off that flattens quickly, typical of a field with one strong incumbent portfolio rather than an oligopoly.
Most filers appear once or twice
Beyond the top 10 (46.0% of all records), the ranking stretches across many companies with small, often single-filing, positions. That spread suggests specialist and academic filers testing narrow claims rather than a market locked up by a few large players.
Momentum has cooled across named filers
Several previously active assignees show zero filings in the latest tracked year, including one recording a -100% year-on-year change. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects filings still working through the pipeline rather than a confirmed exit from the space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Genentech Inc | 0 | — |
| Ohly GmbH | 0 | -100% |
| BBI BIOSEQ A MASSACHUSETTS CORP | 0 | — |
| DIREVO INDAL BIOTECH | 0 | — |
| Pressure BioSciences Inc | 0 | — |
| Covaris Inc | 0 | — |
| Renewable Algal Energy LLC | 0 | — |
| DNA Genotek | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next checks rather than a single verdict — concentration at the top, a plateaued filing rate, and thin apparatus-side claims each suggest a different kind of follow-up.
Check the apparatus-side white space directly
Mixing and stirring (B01F) and bioreactor apparatus (C12M) sit well below C12N in record share. Before drafting a mechanical bead-mill claim, run a focused search on those subclasses alone to confirm how thin prior art actually is there.
Explore in EurekaTrack the named assignees showing zero recent filings
Several assignees with historical activity show no filings in the latest tracked year. Given publication lag, confirm whether this is a pipeline gap or an actual pullback before assuming the ground is open.
Monitor assignees in EurekaUse families, not raw documents, for any cross-filer comparison
The assignee ranking here is already counted in the 300-record family basis, which neutralises continuation filings. Keep that unit consistent if you extend the comparison to additional years or offices.
Build a custom view in EurekaCommon questions on cell disruption bead milling patents
The ranked list covers 100 companies, with the leader holding 24 of the 300 records in scope and the top five combined holding 90 records, or 30.0% of the total. Below the top ten — which together hold 46.0% of all records — filings spread thinly across many single- or low-digit filers, including academic and specialist entrants. This structure means checking any specific competitor's individual portfolio is more informative than assuming a small group controls the space.
Filing activity peaked in 2023 at 26 records, and the comparison between 2021 (2 records) and 2024 (2 records) shows 0% net growth over that span. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the lower counts in 2025 and 2026 in this dataset should be read as still filling in rather than as evidence of a declining field. On the data available through the complete years, the field looks like a plateau rather than either sustained growth or a downturn.
C12N, covering microorganisms and genetic engineering, appears in 94.7% of the 300 records in scope, making it by far the dominant classification. C12M (bioreactor apparatus, 27.0%) and C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis, 26.3%) follow at a distance, with measurement-focused classes C12Q and G01N each near 18-19%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to well over 100% and should not be read as mutually exclusive categories.
The thinner IPC classes point to the gaps: mixing and stirring apparatus (B01F) sits at 12.3% of records and food-grade extraction applications (A23L) at 10.7%, both well below the 94.7% carried by the core biological C12N framing. That gap suggests mechanical bead-mill hardware claims — rotor speed control, heat-generation management, milling-time optimization — face less occupied claim space than claims wrapped around the biological extraction outcome itself. A targeted search within those specific subclasses is the practical way to confirm how open any one sub-area is before drafting.
US20230203428A1, filed by Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of Arizona State University and published 2023-06-29, claims a method of improving intracellular biomolecule extraction yield by storing microbial cells at ultra-low temperature for at least 10 minutes before lysis. It is a pretreatment-step claim tied to cold storage timing, not a claim on bead-mill hardware, rotor speed or milling apparatus design. Work that skips the specific ULT pre-storage step, or uses a different pretreatment altogether, sits outside what this particular filing covers.
Research Cell Disruption Bead Milling in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cell disruption bead milling 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.