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 (77 records) with 2024 (187) — 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 826 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Cultivated meat patenting sits at the intersection of cell biology, food science and process engineering, and the filing record reflects that split. Claims cluster around cell line and culture-medium composition (C12N), bioreactor and process equipment (C12M), and finished food-product form (A23L and A23J), with a smaller but growing set of filings on fat-delivery systems, edible scaffolds and shelf stability. The 826 records in scope span 2015 through the current partial year, giving a decade-long view of how the field moved from academic cell-biology filings toward commercial-scale process and product claims.
Filing activity was negligible before 2017 and accelerated sharply from 2021 onward, tracking the sector's shift from lab demonstration to pilot and semi-commercial production. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the counts for 2025 and 2026 will keep rising as more applications publish — they should not be read as a slowdown.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 826-record dataset: the year-by-year filing curve, and the IPC subclasses those records fall into. Together they show a field still building process infrastructure rather than settling on one dominant route.
Annual filings moved from 0 in 2017 to a peak of 187 in 2024, with the 2021→2024 span alone showing +143% growth. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as undercounts until later publications catch up.
C12N (61.1% of the 826 records) and A23L (49.5%) are the two largest subclasses by a wide margin; C12M bioreactor claims cover a quarter of records, while C12Q testing/measurement claims sit at just 4.4%, marking one of the field's thinner claim zones.
Shares are the percentage of the 826 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 cultivated meat patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaSystems and methods for producing cultured food products such as cultured meat in a form of meat cut or offal are provided, comprising growing non-human-animal adherent cells on edible scaffold(s) in a cultivation system. The cultivation system typically comprises a plurality of cell culture bioreactors receiving medium at a controlled flow rate adjusted to nourish the non-human-animal adherent cells.Filed by Aleph Farms; published 2022-06-23. A related family member, WO2020222239A1, is the single most-cited record in the dataset at 40 citations, indicating this cultivation-system approach is a frequent reference point for later filers.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2020222239A1 | Cultivation systems and methods for large-scale production of cultured food | 40 |
| 2 | US20210045409A1 | Fat delivery system, fat delivery method and food product containing the fat delivery system | 30 |
| 3 | WO2022087750A1 | Plant-derived aerogels, hydrogels, and foams, and methods and uses thereof | 23 |
| 4 | US20220195359A1 | Cultivation systems and methods for large-scale production of cultured food | 18 |
| 5 | US20210037870A1 | Animal cell lines for foods containing cultured animal cells | 15 |
| 6 | US20230407224A1 | A multi-scaffold system for large scale cultivation of cells | 14 |
| 7 | WO2020230138A1 | Pluripotent cell aggregates and use thereof | 14 |
| 8 | WO2024084082A1 | Adipocyte maturation | 13 |
| 9 | WO2020237021A1 | Animal cell lines for foods containing cultured animal cells | 13 |
| 10 | WO2024170696A1 | Maturation of skeletal muscle cells | 12 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citers inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence within this dataset, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 patterns stand out once the record counts, classes and growth figures are put side by side.
The leading assignee holds 81 records against a fifth-place figure of 28 and a tenth-place figure of 16 — a steep drop-off that leaves most of the field to companies with only a handful of filings each. A new entrant is not filing into a market controlled by two or three players.
Annual filings rose from 77 in 2021 to 187 in 2024. Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, the true 2025–2026 filing rate is not yet visible in the published record, so this growth trend should be read as a floor, not a ceiling.
Cell-engineering claims (C12N) and food-form claims (A23L) cover the majority of records, while enzyme/DNA testing claims (C12Q) sit at just 4.4%. That gap suggests quality-control, lot-release and analytical-method claims around cultivated meat are comparatively open.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cultivated meat patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Nourish Ingredients Pty Ltd | Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) | 2 |
The strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset appears only twice, indicating most filings in this field are made by a single assignee rather than through joint-venture or research-partner filing structures.
The ranking spans 100 companies, from a leader with 81 records down to single-filing entrants. Several of the more active names from earlier years show sharply negative year-over-year momentum in the most recent period — a pattern to weigh against the sector's overall filing growth, since it can reflect either a pause in R&D or simply publication lag catching up unevenly across applicants.
The top-ranked assignee's 81 records compare to 28 at fifth place and 16 at tenth — a curve that flattens quickly rather than staying dense, which is typical of a field still forming its competitive core.
A handful of previously active filers show year-over-year declines of -80% to -100% in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, some of this is an artefact of recent applications not yet appearing rather than a genuine pullback.
The most-repeated co-assignee pair appears in only two records, meaning collaborative filings between named organisations are rare relative to solo filings by a single applicant.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Ivy Farm Technologies Ltd | 1 | -83% |
| BTL Healthcare Technologies AS | 1 | -80% |
| Aleph Farms Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| Nourish Ingredients Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| Upside Foods Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Meatable BV | 0 | -100% |
| Nourish Ingredients Pty Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| Terasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation | 0 | — |
A patent landscape narrows the question; it does not answer it. These are the next steps worth taking before committing R&D or legal spend.
The IPC-level shares here show where density sits in general, but a real FTO read requires checking your exact scaffold, medium or bioreactor claim against the underlying full-text families, not just the subclass count.
Explore Patsnap Eureka →Family counts show cumulative position; they don't show what a leader is claiming this quarter. Tracking new publications from the top-ranked assignees is the more useful signal for competitive response.
Explore Patsnap Eureka →C12Q testing claims and shelf-stability claims are thin today at 4.4% of records; a field growing at +143% over three years will not leave that space open indefinitely.
Explore Patsnap Eureka →This dataset contains 826 published records dated from 2015 through the current partial year, drawn from a search combining cultivated-meat terminology with technical terms like cell culture, edible scaffold, growth medium and process equipment. Annual filings rose from effectively zero in 2017 to a peak of 187 in 2024, with 2025 and 2026 figures still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Treat the total as a floor rather than a final count, since more records will publish and be indexed over time.
The dataset ranks 100 assignees by family count, with the leading company holding 81 records compared to 28 at fifth place and 16 at tenth. That gap shows a genuine leader but not a locked market: the top five assignees combined hold only 33.1% of all 826 records, and the top ten hold 44.1%, leaving more than half the field to companies with a handful of filings each. Several previously active filers also show sharp year-over-year declines in the most recent period, though publication lag makes it too early to call that a permanent slowdown.
The largest classification is C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering), touching 61.1% of the 826 records, followed by A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) at 49.5% and C12M (bioreactors and enzyme apparatus) at 25.1%. Protein-related classes A23J and C07K, plus fermentation class C12P, cover smaller but meaningful shares. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100%, and they should be read as claim density signals rather than a strict partition of the field.
The class-level data shows enzyme and DNA testing claims (C12Q) at only 4.4% of records, far below the dominant cell-engineering and food-form classes — a gap relevant to anyone working on lot-release testing, quality control or analytical methods for cultivated products. Shelf-stability, edible-scaffold degradation behaviour and fat-delivery microstructures also show comparatively thinner coverage relative to the core cell-culture and bioreactor classes. These are areas where a well-drafted first claim has more room to stand without immediately colliding with dense prior art.
The most-cited record in this dataset, WO2020222239A1, and its related US filing US20220195359A1 (Aleph Farms, published 2022-06-23), describe cultivation systems and methods for large-scale production of cultured food, including growing non-human-animal adherent cells on edible scaffolds inside bioreactors that supply growth medium at a controlled flow rate. With 40 citations for the WO family member, it is a frequent reference point for later filers working on scaffold-based, bioreactor-driven cultivation systems. Anyone designing a similar large-scale cultivation process should read the granted claim scope directly rather than relying on the abstract, since citation count reflects influence within this searched corpus, not a guarantee of current enforceability.
Go past this page: query the whole cultivated meat 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.