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 (16 records) with 2024 (8) — 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 353 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Enzyme granulation and dust control sits at the intersection of formulation chemistry and process engineering: turning an active enzyme into a free-flowing, low-dust solid that survives handling, blending and storage without losing activity. The claim space spans coating layers, fluid bed granulation parameters, mechanical strength testing and aerosol reduction methods, alongside the underlying enzyme chemistry itself. Because the same granule technology serves detergent, animal feed, food and baking applications, a single patent family often carries claims that read across several end markets.
The dataset in scope covers 353 published records filed or published between 2015 and 2026, drawn from a search string anchored on granulate and dust-control terminology combined with process and performance limitations. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so figures for 2025 and 2026 will keep rising as later filings publish; the 2024 filing count is the most recent year that can be read as settled.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 353 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim weight.
Filings ran from a single record in 2017 to a peak of 30 in 2018, then eased; the tracked span from 2021 (16 filings) to 2024 (8 filings) shows a 50% decline over three years. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag and should not be read as a continuation of the decline.
Animal feed (A23K) and detergents (C11D) dominate, at 54.1% and 47.0% of the 353 records respectively, with microorganism and genetic engineering claims (C12N) present in 30.9%. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should be read individually against the 353-record base, not against each other as parts of a whole.
Shares are the percentage of the 353 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 enzyme granulation and dust control and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe preparation of an activity-stable and low-dust enzyme granulate for washing and cleaning applications, e.g., for use in granular washing and cleaning agent compositions, is described. Also described are the activity-stable and low-dust enzyme granulates obtained in accordance with the method of preparation as well as their use in washing and cleaning applications. In addition, in a special aspect of the invention, the use of specially selected flours entirely generally as auxiliary agents (e.g., vehicles or fillers) for the preparation of enzyme granulates for diverse application purposes is described.Filed by Genencor International; illustrates how early granulate claims tied activity stability and dust reduction to specific filler selection rather than to coating chemistry alone.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4106991A | Enzyme granulate composition and process for forming enzyme granulates | 2,314 |
| 2 | US4661452A | Enzyme containing granulates useful as detergent additives | 1,918 |
| 3 | WO2006034710A1 | Enzyme granules | 386 |
| 4 | WO2010090915A1 | Detergent composition | 364 |
| 5 | EP0304332A2 | Enzyme containing granulate and method for production thereof | 324 |
| 6 | WO1990009440A1 | Enzyme containing granulate and method for production thereof | 314 |
| 7 | EP0304331A2 | Method for production of an enzyme granulate | 290 |
| 8 | WO1997016076A1 | Feed enzyme preparations | 212 |
| 9 | WO2001025412A1 | Enzyme granulate | 155 |
| 10 | WO2008017659A1 | Enzyme granules for animal feed | 151 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations; treat this table as a map of foundational influence, not of current filing activity.
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 findings that shape where a new filing would sit relative to existing claim density.
Combined, the top five assignees account for 93.8% of all 353 records in scope, and the top ten account for 100.0%. This is not a fragmented field with a long tail of small filers; it is a small group of incumbents who between them have claimed essentially the entire published record set.
Animal feed (A23K) appears in 54.1% of records and detergents (C11D) in 47.0%, well ahead of the 30.9% carrying microorganism and genetic engineering claims (C12N). A granule technology developed for one channel is highly likely to read on claims filed for the other.
Filings dropped from 16 in 2021 to 8 in 2024, a 50% decline over that three-year span, after peaking at 30 in 2018. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, the 2025-2026 figures are still incomplete and should not yet be read as confirming or reversing that trend.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to enzyme granulation and dust control, with the prior art for and against each one.
Two of the leading assignees show measurable recent-year activity; most of the historic leaders show none in the latest tracked year, which is consistent with a mature claim position rather than fresh filing.
The leading assignee holds 178 of the 353 records in scope, far ahead of fifth place at 19 and tenth place at just 3. That gap defines the shape of this field: one incumbent, a small group of active challengers, and a steep drop after that.
Novozymes recorded 2 filings in the latest year, a 33% year-on-year decline, while Procter & Gamble held flat at 2 filings with 0% YoY change. The remaining historic leaders in this ranking, including BASF, Novo Nordisk and Henkel, show zero filings in the latest tracked year.
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the three strongest pairs all involve the same corporate assignee filing jointly with different named inventors, each pair appearing three times. This points to sustained internal inventor teams rather than cross-company joint development.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Novozymes A/S | 2 | -33% |
| Procter & Gamble Co. | 2 | 0% |
| BASF SE | 0 | — |
| Novo Nordisk A/S | 0 | — |
| Henkel KGaA | 0 | — |
| NOVO IND AS | 0 | — |
| Genencor International, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Danisco US Inc. | 0 | — |
The dataset points to next questions rather than final answers — each one is a narrower search than the field-wide view above.
With one assignee holding just over half the field, any new filing in coating chemistry or fluid bed process claims needs a targeted clearance search against that portfolio specifically, not just the field average.
Run a freedom-to-operate searchThe 2021-2024 drop of 50% is real, but the most recent two years are still filling in under normal publication lag. Revisit the trend once 2025 filings are substantially published.
Set a filing alertCatalysis-linked, food-shaping and baking-dough granule claims sit far below the detergent and feed density seen elsewhere in this dataset — worth a closer look if your work touches those channels.
Explore white space in EurekaOne assignee holds 178 of the 353 records in scope, which is by far the largest single share in this field. The gap to the rest of the ranked leaders is steep: fifth place holds 19 records and tenth place holds just 3. Combined, the top five assignees account for 93.8% of all 353 records, so this is a field defined by a small number of incumbents rather than a broad base of independent filers.
Filings peaked at 30 in 2018 and had fallen to 8 by 2024, a 50% decline from the 16 filings recorded in 2021. That said, patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as confirming the decline continues. The safest read is that the tracked, complete-year trend through 2024 shows a real cooling from the 2018 peak.
In this dataset, 47.0% of the 353 records carry detergent-related classification (C11D) and 54.1% carry animal feed classification (A23K), and a substantial share of records carry both. The underlying granulation techniques — coating layers, fluid bed processing, mechanical strength and dust reduction — are largely shared across the two applications, with the main differences appearing in formulation additives and regulatory-driven performance claims specific to each end use rather than in the core granulation process itself.
CA2254985C, assigned to Genencor International, claims a method for producing an activity-stable, low-dust enzyme granulate using specially selected flours as auxiliary vehicles or fillers, aimed at washing and cleaning applications. Its scope is tied to that filler selection and the resulting activity-and-dust performance combination, rather than to coating chemistry generally. A new formulation using a different filler class or a coating-based rather than filler-based approach to dust control would sit outside its core claims, though a freedom-to-operate review against the full family is still advisable given how foundational this filing is to the field.
The IPC composition shows heavy density in animal feed (54.1% of 353 records) and detergents (47.0%), with much thinner coverage in catalysis-linked processes (B01J, 1.4%), food-shaping formats (A23P, 2.3%) and baking-dough carriers (A21D, 4.2%). These smaller categories are not necessarily technically harder; they are simply less claimed, which makes them worth a closer novelty search before assuming the space is occupied. Aerosol-reduction measurement methods specifically also appear thinly represented relative to the volume of dust-control claims overall.
Go past this page: query the whole enzyme granulation and dust control 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.