Cell-Free Protein Synthesis Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 68.4% concentration. The top 5 assignees account for 54 of the 79 records in scope — a field where claim space sits with a small group rather than being spread thin.
- Filing peaked in 2017. Activity has not returned to that level since, and 2021's single filing fell to zero by 2024 — a genuine -100% swing, not a data artefact.
- C12N and C12P dominate. 94.9% and 87.3% of records respectively sit in microorganism/genetic-engineering and fermentation/enzymatic-synthesis classes, leaving smaller classes like C12M bioreactors comparatively open.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1 records) with 2024 (0) — 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 79 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this patent set covers
This landscape covers patent families addressing cell-free protein synthesis with a specific focus on ribosome recycling — the mechanisms and reagent systems that let a translation reaction reuse ribosomal machinery across cycles rather than exhausting it. The scope is drawn from IPC classes C12P21/00 (peptide preparation) and C12N9/00 (enzymes), filtered to records discussing in vitro translation or protein manufacturing while excluding diagnostic-assay and patient-treatment framing.
The 79 records span filings from 2015 onward, with most receiving-office activity in the United States and at the EPO. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one or two years in any trend understate real activity — they will fill in as pending applications publish.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 79-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A 2017 peak that has not been repeated
Filings reached 11 in 2017, the high point of the series. By 2021 the annual count had fallen to 1, and by 2024 — the most recent year that can be treated as complete given publication lag — it had reached 0, a -100% move over that three-year span. Later years (2025-2026) are still filling in and should not be read as a continued decline.
Claim density sits in two core classes
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) appears in 94.9% of the 79 records and C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) in 87.3%, confirming that most claims are written around the biological synthesis machinery itself. C07K (peptides and proteins) reaches 46.8%, while A61K, C12Q, C40B, G01N and C12M each sit at or below 11.4% — these smaller classes are where bioreactor hardware, combinatorial library methods and analytical tie-ins remain comparatively lightly claimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 79 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cell-Free Protein Synthesis — Ribosome Recycling Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cell-free protein synthesis — ribosome recycling patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited and most representative filings
US9289742B2 — Efficient method for displaying protein multimer
The patent describes producing a protein multimer-nucleic acid complex by in vitro translation: a nucleic acid encoding a target component is translated to yield a target component-nucleic acid complex, and a nucleic acid encoding a non-target component of the same multimer is then added and translated to complete the complex.Filed by GeneFrontier Corporation, granted 2016-03-22.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7118883B2 | Process for producing peptides by using in vitro transcription/translation system | 230 |
| 2 | US20020197605A1 | Novel Polynucleotides | 201 |
| 3 | US7332310B2 | Mutant of homoserine dehydrogenase from <i>Corynebacterium </i>and DNA encoding thereof | 96 |
| 4 | US20060228712A1 | Novel polynucleotides | 62 |
| 5 | US20130316397A1 | Cell-Free Polypeptide Synthesis | 29 |
| 6 | EP2647720A1 | Peptide library production method, peptide library, and screening method | 27 |
| 7 | US20120077186A1 | Use of cysteine-derived suppressor trnas for non-native amino acid incorporation | 23 |
| 8 | EP2610348A1 | Novel artificial translation/synthesis system | 17 |
| 9 | US9701993B2 | Artificial translation/synthesis system | 17 |
| 10 | US20130217599A1 | Novel artificial translation/synthesis system | 15 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within this corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not a ranking of current 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
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting claims or scoping freedom-to-operate in this space.
A small group holds most of the claim space
With the top 5 assignees covering 54 of 79 records and the top 10 reaching 93.7%, this is not a fragmented field. A freedom-to-operate review can focus tightly on a short list of assignees rather than scanning a long tail.
Peak activity was 2017, not now
The filing count has not returned to its 2017 peak of 11 in any subsequent year in this dataset, with 2021 down to a single filing and 2024 at zero. Recent-year momentum by individual assignee also shows zero filings in the latest year across several previously active names.
Two IPC classes carry almost all the density
C12N and C12P together anchor nearly every record, while C12M (bioreactors) sits at only 6.3% and C40B (combinatorial libraries) at 10.1%. Claim drafting aimed at reaction hardware or library-screening methods faces far less prior art than core synthesis-mechanism claims.
The oldest core patents still anchor the field
The most-cited record, on producing peptides via an in vitro transcription/translation system, sits well above the next entries in citation count. That gap points to a small set of foundational mechanism patents that later filings build claims around rather than route past.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cell-free protein synthesis — ribosome recycling patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked list covers 19 companies across academic, corporate and biotech entrants; a handful of names account for most of the volume, with a long tail of single-digit filers.
One assignee sits well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 13 of the 79 records, roughly double the fifth-place count of 7. That gap suggests a sustained, multi-year filing programme rather than opportunistic single filings.
A cluster of mid-tier filers
Fifth place holds 7 records and tenth place holds 2, showing a fairly steep drop-off rather than an even spread — the field narrows quickly outside the leading handful.
Collaboration is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest repeated pairing involving the same individual inventor across three separate co-filings. Cross-company joint filing is not a major feature of this landscape.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Post Genome Institute Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Ambrx, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Kangma (Shanghai) Biotech Ltd. | 0 | — |
| The University of Tokyo | 0 | — |
| Northwestern University | 0 | — |
| GeneFrontier Corporation | 0 | — |
| Natures Toolbox, Inc. | 0 | — |
| YOKOI HARUHIKO | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated core and several lightly claimed branches. The next step is usually to test a specific claim idea or assignee against the full record set.
Map a design-around
Take a candidate ribosome-recycling mechanism and check it against the leading assignees' claim scope before drafting.
Explore in EurekaTrack the leader's recent filings
Follow the top-ranked assignee's activity beyond this cut-off to see whether the 2017 filing pace ever resumes.
Set up monitoring in EurekaScope white space branches
Investigate bioreactor hardware and combinatorial-library claims, where IPC share is lowest relative to the core synthesis classes.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The assignee ranking in this dataset covers 19 companies, with the leading assignee holding 13 of the 79 records in scope — roughly double the count held by the fifth-ranked entrant at 7. The top 5 assignees together account for 68.4% of all records, and the top 10 reach 93.7%, so the field is concentrated rather than fragmented. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work here can focus review on a short list of names rather than a long tail of filers.
Filing peaked at 11 records in 2017 and has not returned to that level since; by 2021 annual filings had dropped to 1, and by 2024 — the most recent year treatable as complete — the count reached 0, a -100% change over that span. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any chart are still filling in and should not be read as evidence the field has stopped. The honest read is a field with a clear historical peak and reduced recent visible filing, not necessarily reduced actual research activity.
US9289742B2, assigned to GeneFrontier Corporation and granted in 2016, covers a method for producing a protein multimer-nucleic acid complex using sequential in vitro translation steps: one nucleic acid encoding a target component is translated first, then a nucleic acid encoding a non-target component of the same multimer is added and translated to complete the complex. This is a specific multimer-display method rather than a broad claim over cell-free synthesis or ribosome recycling generally. Anyone working on multimer-display or complex-assembly workflows via in vitro translation should read the claims closely against this patent.
IPC composition data shows C12N and C12P classes covering 94.9% and 87.3% of the 79 records respectively, meaning most claim activity centres on the core synthesis and enzymatic mechanisms. Classes like C12M (bioreactors and enzyme apparatus, 6.3%) and C40B (combinatorial chemistry libraries, 10.1%) carry far less claim density. That gap suggests reaction hardware, continuous-flow recycling apparatus, and library-screening integration are comparatively open areas relative to the core biology claims.
The most-cited record in this set, on producing peptides via an in vitro transcription/translation system, has 230 citations, well ahead of the next entries. Citation counts accumulate over time, so older records within a searched corpus will always look more influential than recent ones simply by virtue of having been available longer to cite. Use citation rank as a signal of which mechanisms became foundational, not as a measure of which patents matter most today.
Research Cell-Free Protein Synthesis — Ribosome Recycling Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cell-free protein synthesis — ribosome recycling 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.