https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/cultivated-meat-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Cultivated Meat
Cultivated meat patents: who leads, how fast filings grew, and where claim space is still open
  • Filings nearly two and a half times over three years: annual filings rose from 77 in 2021 to 187 in 2024, a +143% increase, before the two most recent years (still incomplete due to publication lag).
  • The top of the ranking is concentrated but not locked up: the leading five assignees account for 33.1% of all 826 records, and the leading ten for 44.1% — leaving more than half the field to a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
  • Bioreactor and scaffold claims sit on the densest prior art: C12N (microorganisms & genetic engineering) touches 61.1% of records and A23L (foods) 49.5%, while C12Q (enzyme/DNA testing) covers just 4.4% — a visible gap for quality-control and lot-release claims.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
826
Published Records
33%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+143%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
WO
Leading Jurisdiction

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.

Published byPatsnap Research··8 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What the cultivated meat patent record actually shows

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.

Filing activity by year, 2017–2026
  1. 1ALEPH FARMS LTD81
  2. 2AVANT MEATS CO LTD71
  3. 3UPSIDE FOODS INC59
  4. 4MEATABLE BV34
  5. 5NOURISH INGREDIENTS PTY LTD28
  6. 6TERASAKI INST FOR BIOMEDICAL INNOVATION23
  7. 7IVY FARM TECH LTD19
  8. 8MULTUS BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD17
  9. 9GIVAUDAN SA16
  10. 10BTL HEALTHCARE TECH AS16
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cultivated Meat Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
The data

Filing trends and technology composition

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.

From zero to 187 filings a year

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.

From zero to 187 filings a year0501001502000201720182019202020212022202318720242025132026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Cell engineering and food form dominate the classification mix

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.

Cell engineering and food form dominate the classification mixC12N · Microorganisms & genetic engin…50561.1%A23L · Foods & non-alcoholic beverages40949.5%C12M · Bioreactors & enzyme apparatus20725.1%A23J · Proteins & food peptides15218.4%C07K · Peptides & proteins759.1%C12P · Fermentation & enzymatic synth…516.2%A61K · Medicinal preparations425.1%C12Q · Measuring & testing involving …364.4%Other38847.0%

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%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cultivated Meat Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Cultivated Meat Patent Landscape with Eureka

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 Eureka
Key patents

The most-cited filings, and one worth reading in full

Representative filing
US20220195359A12022-06-23

US20220195359A1 — Cultivation systems and methods for large-scale production of cultured food

ALEPH FARMS LTD.

Systems 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.

US20220195359A1 — patent drawing 1US20220195359A1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing
Most-cited records in the dataset
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1WO2020222239A1Cultivation systems and methods for large-scale production of cultured food40
2US20210045409A1Fat delivery system, fat delivery method and food product containing the fat delivery system30
3WO2022087750A1Plant-derived aerogels, hydrogels, and foams, and methods and uses thereof23
4US20220195359A1Cultivation systems and methods for large-scale production of cultured food18
5US20210037870A1Animal cell lines for foods containing cultured animal cells15
6US20230407224A1A multi-scaffold system for large scale cultivation of cells14
7WO2020230138A1Pluripotent cell aggregates and use thereof14
8WO2024084082A1Adipocyte maturation13
9WO2020237021A1Animal cell lines for foods containing cultured animal cells13
10WO2024170696A1Maturation of skeletal muscle cells12

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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cultivated Meat Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Insights

What the numbers mean for a filing or freedom-to-operate decision

Three patterns stand out once the record counts, classes and growth figures are put side by side.

Concentration
33.1% / 44.1%
share of 826 records held by top 5 / top 10 assignees

Leadership is real but not exclusive

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.

Based on the 100-company ranking returned for this dataset.
Growth
+143%
filing growth, 2021 to 2024

The filing curve is still climbing

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.

2024 is the most recent year treated as complete.
Claim density
61.1% vs 4.4%
C12N share vs C12Q share of 826 records

Testing and measurement claims are thin

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.

Class shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple IPC codes.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

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.

Find the white space →
Co-filing is rare
AssigneeCo-assigneeShared families
Nourish Ingredients Pty LtdCommonwealth 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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cultivated Meat Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players

Who is filing, and where the momentum is cooling

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.

Leader
81 records
leading assignee, by family count

One clear leader, then a steep drop

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.

Counted across the 826 records in scope.
Momentum
-83% to -100% YoY
recent-year change across several named assignees

Several early movers have slowed sharply

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.

Momentum figures are per-assignee, latest year vs prior year.
Co-filing
2 filings
strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset

Joint filings are the exception

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.

Based on co-assignee pair frequency across all records.
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth a closer look
These sub-areas show comparatively thin filing density against the dataset's dominant classes, and may offer more room for a defensible first claim.
enzymatic/DNA lot-release testingshelf-stability & packaging methodsfat-delivery microstructuresedible scaffold degradation kineticscontinuous-flow bioreactor sensing
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filer momentum
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Ivy Farm Technologies Ltd1-83%
BTL Healthcare Technologies AS1-80%
Aleph Farms Ltd0-100%
Nourish Ingredients Pty Ltd0
Upside Foods Inc0-100%
Meatable BV0-100%
Nourish Ingredients Pty Ltd0-100%
Terasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cultivated Meat Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next

Turning this landscape into a filing or FTO decision

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.

Run a freedom-to-operate check on your specific claim scope

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 →

Watch the leading assignees' newest filings, not just their totals

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 →

Draft into the thinner classes before they fill in

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 →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cultivated Meat Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask about cultivated meat patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cultivated Meat Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Cultivated Meat Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

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.

Try Eureka

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.