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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/enzyme-discovery-for-industrial-processes-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Biobased ChemicalsEnzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes: Patents, Leaders and Open Ground
- Five filers hold 60.4% of the field. 162 of 268 records in scope sit with the top five assignees, and the leader alone accounts for 47 records — this is a concentrated space, not a fragmented one.
- Filing peaked in 2020, not now. The trend tops out at 10 records in 2020; the most recent years read low mainly because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, not because interest has stopped.
- Genetic engineering claims dominate the class mix. C12N covers 76.1% of the 268 records in scope, far ahead of fermentation (C12P, 20.5%) or protein chemistry (C07K, 12.7%) — the crowding is concentrated in one subclass.
268
Published Records
60%
Top-5 Share of All Records
US
Leading Jurisdiction
92
Active Filers Ranked
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 268 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the filing record shows
Enzyme discovery for industrial processes sits at the intersection of microbial genetics, protein engineering and process compatibility testing. The 268 records in scope span thermostability, solvent tolerance, immobilization and expression-host claims filed between 2015 and 2026. Coverage is dense at the top: a small set of assignees, several of them research universities partnered with commercial licensees, account for the majority of activity, while a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants fills in narrower process niches.
The class composition points to where the claim pressure actually sits. Microorganism and genetic-engineering claims (C12N) touch more than three-quarters of records, while fermentation and enzymatic synthesis (C12P), analytical/testing methods (G01N, C12Q) and food applications (A23L) each cover a meaningful but much smaller slice. Medicinal preparations (A61K) and plant breeding (A01H) appear as adjacent but secondary branches, suggesting enzyme discovery IP is filed primarily as a genetic-engineering and process-testing story rather than a therapeutic or agricultural one.
Filing concentration and IPC composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Enzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 268-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which parts of the classification system carry the claim density.
Filing activity, 2015–2026
Filings rose to a peak of 10 records in 2020 and have not exceeded that level since. Because publication trails filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years in the chart will always understate real activity — treat the most recent bars as provisional, not as a decline.
IPC subclass coverage
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) appears in 76.1% of the 268 records in scope, making it the dominant classification by a wide margin. C12P (20.5%), G01N (16.0%) and C12Q (15.7%) form a second tier tied to fermentation and enzyme testing methods. Because records carry multiple IPC classes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should be read individually against the 268-record base, not against each other as a pie.
Shares are the percentage of the 268 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 Enzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Enzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about enzyme discovery for industrial processes and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited records in this dataset
Representative filing
EP2099904A4 — stabilized protein generation methods (California Institute of Technology)
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
This filing, published under the German-language title translating to "Method for producing novel stabilized proteins," claims methods for generating stabilized protein variants — squarely inside the thermostability and process-compatibility claim space this dataset tracks.Abstract summarized from the original filing; wording simplified for readability.
Highest-citation records, 2015–2026
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7884262B2 | Modified DMO enzyme and methods of its use | 1,158 |
| 2 | WO2008010925A2 | Protease variants active over a broad temperature range | 439 |
| 3 | US20080090747A1 | Protease variants active over a broad temperature range | 387 |
| 4 | US20050124010A1 | Whole cell engineering by mutagenizing a substantial portion of a starting genome combining mutations and opt… | 268 |
| 5 | US20040077090A1 | Whole cell engineering by mutagenizing a substantial portion of a starting genome, combining mutations, and o… | 191 |
| 6 | WO2002029032A2 | Whole cell engineering by mutagenizing a substantial portion of a starting genome, combining mutations, and o… | 161 |
| 7 | WO2007130453A2 | Non-natural amino acid substituted polypeptides | 156 |
| 8 | US5914245A | Solid phase enzyme kinetics screening in microcolonies | 146 |
| 9 | US8048674B2 | Methods and compositions for cellular and metabolic engineering | 126 |
| 10 | WO2001096551A2 | Whole cell engineering by mutagenizing a substantial portion of a starting genome, combining mutations, and o… | 125 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not as a measure of current commercial relevance.
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 Enzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. 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
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 strategy
Three patterns stand out once the assignee ranking, the IPC composition and the receiving-office split are read together.
Concentration
60.4%
of 268 records held by top 5
The field has a defined center of gravity
With 162 of 268 records in scope held by five assignees, and the leader alone at 47, new entrants are filing into a space where the core claim territory is already staked. The top 10 combined reach 88.1%, leaving a narrow band for the rest of the ranked 92 companies.
Based on the full 92-company assignee ranking.
Classification density
76.1%
of records classified under C12N
Genetic-engineering claims crowd one subclass
C12N appears in more than three-quarters of the 268 records in scope, which means most filers are routing their claims through microorganism and genetic-engineering language even when the underlying invention is a testing method or an immobilization strategy. That crowding raises the bar for a clean C12N claim and rewards precise, narrow drafting.
IPC shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple classes.
Filing geography
61 US filings
leading receiving office of six tracked
US and PCT routes lead, Asia is absent from the top offices
The United States (61), WIPO/PCT (45) and the EPO (42) are the three largest receiving offices in this dataset, with Australia, Canada and India trailing. None of the major Asian patent offices appear among the top receiving offices tracked here, which is worth checking against a filer's own target markets.
Receiving-office counts from the 268-record dataset.
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 enzyme discovery for industrial processes, with the prior art for and against each one.
Co-filing patterns
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Monsanto Technology LLC | Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska | 25 |
| Regents of the University of California | The Flinders University of South Australia | 10 |
| Verenium Corp | BP Corp North America Inc | 6 |
| ALLOZYNE INC | WANG AIJUN | 4 |
| ALLOZYNE INC | NAIRN NATALIE WINBLADE | 4 |
| ALLOZYNE INC | MCCRAITH STEPHEN | 4 |
| ALLOZYNE INC | GRABSTEIN KENNETH H | 4 |
| ALLOZYNE INC | DATTA DEEPSHIKHA | 4 |
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset; the strongest pairing links a commercial biotech to a university partner at 25 shared records, suggesting licensing or joint-research structures rather than pure in-house filing are common at the top of this field.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Enzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
The ranked assignee list covers 92 companies across 268 records. Momentum in the most recent tracked year is flat across the historically dominant filers, which is consistent with the publication-lag effect rather than a real pullback.
Leader
47 records
top-ranked assignee
A single filer holds the largest share
The leading assignee's 47 records make it the largest single contributor in the ranking, well ahead of the fifth-place assignee at 26 and the tenth-place assignee at 10. That gap defines the shape of the field: concentrated at the very top, then a steep drop into a long tail.
From the 92-company ranked assignee list.
Mid tier
26 records
fifth-place assignee
The second tier is still substantial
Assignees ranked second through fifth still carry double-digit record counts, meaning the top five collectively reach 60.4% of the 268 records in scope. Below tenth place (10 records), the ranking thins quickly into single- and few-filing entrants.
Top 5 combined: 162 of 268 records.
Momentum
0 in latest year
for six tracked leading assignees
Recent-year activity reads flat for the historic leaders
The assignees that built the largest historical portfolios show no filings in the latest tracked year, but this should be read against the roughly 18-month publication lag rather than as an exit from the field — recent filings from these groups may simply not have published yet.
Momentum tracked across six leading assignees.
Recent filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Monsanto Technology LLC | 0 | — |
| ALLOZYNE INC | 0 | — |
| Verenium Corp | 0 | — |
| BP Corp North America Inc | 0 | — |
| California Institute of Technology | 0 | — |
| Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska | 0 | — |
| Diversa Corp | 0 | — |
| Danisco US Inc | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Enzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. 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 decision
The dataset shows where claim density already sits and where it does not. Deciding what to file next means checking a specific claim against that density, not just reading the summary.
Check a draft claim against the crowded core
Before drafting inside C12N or C12P, run the proposed claim language against the existing dense filings from the top assignees to see how much room remains for a distinct, allowable claim.
Search this space in EurekaMap the white space branches in detail
The under-claimed sub-areas identified here — solvent tolerance, immobilization for continuous flow, non-model expression hosts — warrant a closer look at the specific claim language already on file before committing R&D budget.
Explore white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Enzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this landscape
The dataset's assignee ranking covers 92 companies and research institutions across 268 records, with the top-ranked assignee holding 47 records on its own. The top five combined account for 60.4% of all 268 records in scope, and the top ten reach 88.1%, which means the field is heavily concentrated at the top rather than evenly spread. Several of the leading filers are universities working alongside commercial partners, visible in the co-assignee pairings in the dataset.
The recorded trend peaks at 10 records in 2020 and has not exceeded that level in any later year through the current data cut-off. However, patent publication typically lags the actual filing date by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any chart will understate real activity rather than reflect an actual slowdown. A reliable read on 2024-2026 filing levels will not be possible until later publications catch up.
C12N, covering microorganisms and genetic engineering, appears in 76.1% of the 268 records in scope, making it by far the dominant classification. C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) follows at 20.5%, with G01N (material testing) and C12Q (enzyme/DNA measuring methods) each in the 15-16% range. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages do not sum to 100% and should each be read against the full 268-record base.
EP2099904A4, assigned to the California Institute of Technology, covers methods for generating stabilized protein variants — directly relevant to any thermostability-focused enzyme discovery work. Anyone drafting claims around protein stabilization techniques should review its specific claim scope closely, since overlapping method claims in this area are one of the more likely sources of a freedom-to-operate conflict. It does not block adjacent work in, for example, immobilization or expression-host selection, which sit in different parts of the classification map.
Based on the IPC composition, branches like solvent-tolerant biocatalyst screening, immobilization strategies for continuous-flow reactors, and expression-host selection for non-model organisms carry noticeably lower record density than the dominant C12N genetic-engineering claims. These are not unclaimed, but they are less crowded than the core space where the top assignees concentrate their filings. A narrow, technically specific claim in one of these branches has a better chance of clearing prior art than a broad claim inside C12N.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Enzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Enzyme Discovery for Industrial Processes in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole enzyme discovery for industrial processes 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.