Fusion Protein Purification Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- 24.9% concentration at the top. The five most active assignees account for 118 of 473 records in scope — a leadership cluster, not a monopoly, with room below it.
- Filing has plateaued, not collapsed. From 2021 to 2024 — the last complete filing years — output moved from 14 to 13 records, a -7% shift that reads as steady rather than declining.
- Purification claims sit inside a genetic-engineering-heavy field. C12N classes touch 84.6% of the 473 records, meaning most purification claims are filed alongside construct and expression claims, not on their own.
Filing growth compares 2021 (14 records) with 2024 (13) — 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 473 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 473 published records at the intersection of fusion-protein purification process claims and the recombinant production art that surrounds them — chromatography supports, tag-cleavage chemistry, and recovery steps filed under C12P21/08, C07K16/00 and C12N15/62. Records that only describe patient treatment, diagnostic imaging or in vivo administration were excluded, so the set is weighted toward manufacturing claims rather than therapeutic use claims.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than the true filing activity — read the 2025-2026 tail as incomplete, not as a drop-off.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 473 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend: a peak, then a plateau
Filings peaked at 34 in 2017. By the last complete window, 2021 to 2024, volume held roughly steady — 14 down to 13 records, a -7% move that is closer to a plateau than a decline. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as still filling in given publication lag.
Technology composition: purification riding on construct claims
C07K (peptides and proteins) touches 96.4% of the 473 records and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) touches 84.6% — confirming that most purification claims are filed as part of a broader construct-and-expression filing rather than standing alone. A61K medicinal-preparation classes appear in 63.8% of records, and C12P fermentation/enzymatic synthesis in 51.0%, reflecting the process-heavy character of this art. Shares sum past 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes.
Shares are the percentage of the 473 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Fusion Protein Manufacturing — Fusion-Protein Purification Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about fusion protein manufacturing — fusion-protein purification patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
WO2025173342A1 — Chromatographic support for purifying Fc fusion protein
Filed by JSR Corporation, this application claims a chromatographic support for purifying Fc fusion proteins: porous synthetic- or natural-polymer particles carrying an immobilized protein A/G/L ligand, with average pore diameter specified at 75-120 nm, plus the purification method that uses it.Published 2025-08-21 — recent enough that its downstream citation footprint has not yet developed.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO1999057280A2 | Neisseria meningitidis antigens and compositions | 904 |
| 2 | WO2000022430A2 | Neisseria genomic sequences and methods of their use | 452 |
| 3 | US5834247A | Modified proteins comprising controllable intervening protein sequences or their elements methods of producin… | 390 |
| 4 | US6965018B2 | Antibodies directed to B7-related polypeptide, BSL-2 | 255 |
| 5 | WO2000066791A1 | Neisseria genomic sequences and methods of their use | 220 |
| 6 | WO2000069913A1 | EXPRESSION AND EXPORT OF INTERFERON-ALPHA PROTEINS AS Fc FUSION PROTEINS | 195 |
| 7 | WO2001094413A2 | B7-related nucleic acids and polypeptides and their uses for immunomodulation | 184 |
| 8 | US20020081664A1 | Expression and export of interferon-alpha proteins as Fc fusion proteins | 163 |
| 9 | US6313269B1 | Tumor necrosis factor related receptor, TR6 | 161 |
| 10 | WO1994029459A1 | Stress proteins and uses therefor | 144 |
Citation counts favor older records simply by virtue of age in the corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not 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 read-outs from the assignee, jurisdiction and citation data that matter more than the raw counts on their own.
Leadership is real but not exclusive
The five most active assignees hold 118 of 473 records (24.9%), and the ranked ten hold 203 (42.9%). That leaves well over half the field split across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants — a workable entry point for a new filer, provided the claim sits outside the incumbents' core.
Europe edges the US as the primary filing venue
Europe (EPO) leads with 95 records, ahead of the United States at 86 and WIPO/PCT at 63. Canada (52), Australia (44) and Japan (22) round out meaningful but smaller filing venues, suggesting freedom-to-operate work should not stop at a US-only search.
Old antigen and protein-tag patents still anchor citation chains
The most-cited records in this corpus are foundational antigen-composition and controllable-intervening-sequence patents from the late 1990s, not recent purification filings. New applicants should expect examiners to cite this older art even where the claims are purification-specific.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to fusion protein manufacturing — fusion-protein purification patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is active, and where the gate sits
The assignee ranking spans 100 companies counted in records — this is the full ranking the data endpoint returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
One filer sits clearly ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 29 records, well ahead of fifth place at 22 and tenth place at 14. That gap suggests a sustained, deliberate filing program rather than opportunistic filing.
A tight mid-field cluster
Positions five through ten sit between 22 and 14 records — a narrower spread than the gap to the leader, indicating several assignees are filing at comparable, moderate volume rather than one runner-up closing in on the top spot.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in this corpus, with the strongest pairings clustering around a small number of research-institute and corporate partnerships. Most records in this field are filed by a single assignee rather than jointly.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Bristol Myers Squibb | 0 | — |
| The Institute for Genomic Research | 0 | — |
| Amunix Pharmaceuticals | 0 | — |
| National Research Council of Canada | 0 | — |
| Chiron Corporation | 0 | — |
| GliKnik Inc | 0 | — |
| TETTELIN HERVE | 0 | — |
| SCARSELLI MARIA | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
This landscape is a starting point for freedom-to-operate and whitespace scoping, not a substitute for a full clearance search.
Map the mid-field assignees' active claims
The tight cluster between fifth and tenth place is worth individual claim review before committing to a purification route that overlaps their filings.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaPressure-test a white-space claim draft
Under-claimed branches like continuous chromatography or scale-down validation methods deserve a novelty check against the full corpus, not just this summary.
Run a novelty check in EurekaTrack filings past the publication-lag window
2025-2026 records are still incomplete in this dataset; set an alert to catch filings as they publish rather than relying on the current snapshot.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on fusion-protein purification patents
The ranked leader in this dataset holds 29 of the 473 records in scope, with the top five assignees together holding 118 records (24.9%) and the top ten holding 203 (42.9%). That leaves the majority of records spread across a long tail of assignees filing at low volume. Reviewing the leader's full portfolio, not just its count, is necessary before assuming a blocking position — record count alone does not tell you claim scope.
Filing peaked at 34 records in 2017 and has since settled to a lower, fairly stable level. Comparing 2021 (14 records) to 2024 (13 records) — the last years complete enough to compare fairly — shows a -7% change, which reads as a plateau rather than a genuine decline. Data from 2025 onward is still incomplete because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so recent years will look artificially low for some time yet.
C07K (peptides and proteins) appears in 96.4% of the 473 records and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) in 84.6%, showing that purification claims are almost always filed alongside construct or expression claims rather than standing alone. A61K medicinal-preparation classes cover 63.8% of records and C12P fermentation and enzymatic synthesis covers 51.0%. A drafter targeting pure purification-process claims should still expect to search and cite across all of these classes.
The concentration figures leave more than half of all records outside the ranked leaders, and specific branches — continuous chromatography for Fc-fusion recovery, tag-cleavage enzyme specificity, and single-use flow-path hardware — show comparatively thinner filing relative to the core construct-and-purification claims. That does not guarantee freedom to operate, since older foundational patents can still cite against a new filing, but it does mark where claim density is lower than the field average. A targeted novelty search against the current corpus is the necessary next step before drafting.
WO2025173342A1, filed by JSR Corporation and published 2025-08-21, claims a chromatographic support for Fc-fusion protein purification: porous polymer particles carrying an immobilized protein A, G, or L ligand with an average pore diameter specified at 75-120 nm, along with the corresponding purification method. It is specific to that pore-diameter range and ligand chemistry, so purification methods using different pore sizes, different ligand classes, or non-chromatographic recovery steps sit outside its literal claim scope. Anyone designing a similar resin-based purification step should check the exact pore-diameter and ligand limitations against their own process before assuming clearance.
Research Fusion Protein Manufacturing — Fusion-Protein Purification Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole fusion protein manufacturing — fusion-protein purification 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.