Frozen Dough Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 78.3% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 339 of 433 records in scope, so most enzyme and dough-improver claim space is already occupied by a small group of filers.
- Filing has gone quiet. The tracked span peaked in 2017 at 17 records and fell to 0 by 2024, though the 2025-26 count is still filling in as publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
- Baking and microorganism classes dominate. A21D (baking, doughs) and C12N (microorganisms) each cover over half of the 433 records, leaving preservation and dairy-adjacent classes comparatively thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 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 433 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This review covers 433 published records matching frozen dough technology terms spanning yeast cryotolerance, ice crystal damage, gluten weakening, proof time recovery, freezing rate and storage duration. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, though the most recent one to two years are understated because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months. Records are drawn across multiple receiving offices, with the United States, EPO and WIPO/PCT routes carrying the largest counts.
The dataset is dominated by enzyme and dough-improver chemistry rather than mechanical freezing equipment, which shows up clearly in the IPC composition: baking and dough classes and microorganism/genetic-engineering classes each touch more than half of all records. Food preservation and dairy-adjacent classes are present but far smaller, which is where a reader looking for open claim space should start.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 433 records: how filing activity moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 17 in 2017 and declined to 0 by 2024; the -100% swing from 2021 (2 records) to 2024 (0 records) is the last span that can be read as complete, since 2025-26 records are still arriving.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A21D (baking, doughs) leads at 65.6% of the 433 records, followed by C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) at 53.1%; A23L and C07K each sit at 19.9%, with A23G, A23B, A23C and C12P trailing below 12% — note a record can carry several classes so these shares do not sum to 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 433 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Frozen Dough Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about frozen dough technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this space
US6589583B1 — Freezer to oven dough products
The patent describes freezer-to-oven dough products using a chemical leavening system built from multiple leavening acids that activate across different temperature ranges. This staged rising, occurring over a wide range of the cooking cycle, is positioned to remove the need for a preproofing step before freezing.Assignee: General Mills, Inc. · Published 2003-07-08
View full record →| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO1994004035A1 | Use of lipase in baking | 201 |
| 2 | WO1996028542A1 | An enzyme with aminopeptidase activity | 83 |
| 3 | WO2002019828A1 | A dough composition comprising a lipid-encapsulated enzyme | 75 |
| 4 | US6558715B1 | Methods for using lipases in baking | 73 |
| 5 | US20020094367A1 | Dough composition | 72 |
| 6 | US6110508A | Use of lipase in baking | 70 |
| 7 | US6589583B1 | Freezer to oven dough products | 69 |
| 8 | US6146869A | Polypeptides having phospholipase B activity and nucleic acids encoding same | 61 |
| 9 | WO1997041736A1 | Use of a branching enzyme in baking | 59 |
| 10 | EP0305071A2 | Process for making preproofed unbaked and frozen doughs | 51 |
Citation counts favour older filings within the searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking of current commercial relevance.
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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Three readings of the same dataset, aimed at where to file, where not to, and who to watch.
Claim space at the top is largely closed
With 339 of 433 records held by the five leading assignees, enzyme-based dough-improver and cryotolerant-yeast claims sit on dense prior art from a small group of filers. A new entrant filing directly against those claim types should expect a crowded search report.
Filing activity has cooled from its peak
The tracked trend fell from a peak of 17 records in 2017 to 0 by 2024, and the -100% swing from 2021's 2 records to 2024 confirms the pattern rather than an artefact of publication lag. Readers should treat 2025-26 figures as still filling in rather than as evidence the field has reopened.
Two classes carry most of the technical weight
Baking/dough claims (A21D) and microorganism/genetic-engineering claims (C12N) each cover more than half the record set, meaning most protected ground concerns either the dough formulation itself or the yeast/enzyme biology inside it — not the freezing equipment or storage logistics.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to frozen dough technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it thins out
The ranking covers 91 companies counted in records — not a top-50 or top-100 cut — with a steep drop from the leader to the rest.
One filer sets the pace by a wide margin
The leading assignee's 171 records dwarf the fifth-place count of 31, which itself is more than three times the tenth-place count of 9. This is a landscape with one dominant filer, a mid-tier of a handful of active companies, and a long tail below that.
Almost the entire field sits with ten filers
413 of 433 records in scope belong to the top 10 assignees. Anyone outside that group is filing into a field where nearly all prior art of record already belongs to a small, known set of competitors.
Collaboration is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pairing reaches 9 shared records. Co-filing is not the norm here; most records carry a single assignee of record.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| DSM IP Assets B.V. | 0 | — |
| Novo Nordisk A/S | 0 | — |
| Novozymes A/S | 0 | — |
| International N&H Denmark ApS | 0 | — |
| Roskilde University | 0 | — |
| Novo Nordisk Biotech, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Novozymes, Inc. | 0 | — |
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to a field with closed ground at the top and open ground in adjacent branches.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader
With one assignee holding 171 of 433 records, any new dough-improver or cryotolerant-yeast claim should be checked against that portfolio before drafting.
Explore assignee portfolios in Eureka →Look past the two dominant IPC classes
A21D and C12N cover most of the record set; freezing-rate control and storage-duration stability sit in thinner classes and may offer more room to claim.
Run a white-space search in Eureka →Track the citation leaders, not just the counts
The most-cited records date from the 1990s-2000s; understanding what they actually block matters more than their raw citation totals.
Review key patents in Eureka →Common questions about frozen dough patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 171 of the 433 records in scope, far ahead of the fifth-ranked filer at 31 and the tenth-ranked filer at 9. The top 5 assignees combined hold 339 records, or 78.3% of the total, and the top 10 combined hold 413 records, or 95.4% of the total. This means the field is concentrated among a small number of enzyme and ingredient companies rather than spread evenly across many bakery or food manufacturers.
Filing activity peaked at 17 records in 2017 and had fallen to 0 by 2024, with the -100% swing from 2021 (2 records) to 2024 confirming a real decline rather than noise. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-26 figures are not yet complete and should not be read as evidence the field has gone quiet or reopened. The safest reading is that 2024 is the last year with a reliable count.
The two largest IPC classes are A21D (baking and doughs), covering 65.6% of the 433 records, and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering), covering 53.1%. Smaller classes include A23L (foods and beverages) and C07K (peptides and proteins), each at 19.9%, with confectionery, food preservation, dairy and fermentation classes each below 12%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to well over 100% and should not be summed as if they were mutually exclusive.
The smaller IPC classes point to it: food preservation (9.5% of records), dairy products (9.2%) and fermentation/enzymatic synthesis (7.4%) are all far behind the dominant baking and microorganism classes. Sub-areas such as freezing-rate control equipment, storage-duration stability additives and proof-time recovery monitoring show comparatively little filing density relative to enzyme and dough-improver chemistry. A first claim in these branches would likely face less crowded prior art than one filed directly against cryotolerant-yeast or lipase-based improver claims.
US6589583B1, assigned to General Mills, covers freezer-to-oven dough products using a chemical leavening system built from multiple leavening acids that become active across different temperature ranges. The staged-rising effect this produces is described as removing the need for a separate preproofing step before freezing. Anyone designing a freezer-to-oven product with a multi-stage or temperature-differentiated leavening system should review this record closely before finalising a formulation.
Research Frozen Dough Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole frozen dough technology 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.