Infant Formula Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 86.7% of all 706 records sit with just five assignees — this field is a concentrated core, not a long tail of independent inventors.
- Filing peaked in 2020 at 51 and has declined since, with the 2022 midpoint at 14 — a maturing, not a growing, filing pattern.
- A23L covers 96.5% of records while fermentation and enzymatic synthesis (C12P) touches only 3.5% — a visible gap next to a crowded core.
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on 706 published records filed between 2015 and 2026 across infant formula composition, human milk oligosaccharide use, and early-life nutrition claims spanning protein hydrolysate design, fat blend structure, micronutrient stability, gut microbiota effect, and associated safety and regulation language. The scope is anchored in IPC classes A23L33, A23C9 and A23L2 — food and dairy compositions rather than pharmaceutical delivery — so the records here are predominantly formulation and process claims, not therapeutic-use patents filed under a purely medical framework.
The receiving-office spread — led by Europe, the United States and the WIPO/PCT route, with Australia, the Philippines and Canada also represented — points to a field where multinational formula makers file broadly rather than concentrating in a single jurisdiction. That pattern is consistent with a mature, globally regulated product category rather than a regionally experimental one.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 706-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the subclass shares add up to more than 100% — that is expected and is not a data error.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose to a peak of 51 in 2020, then fell — the 2022 midpoint of 14 confirms a declining rather than flat trajectory. The 2026 figure of 2 is a partial year under the roughly 18-month publication lag and understates real filing activity for that year.
IPC subclass composition
A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) covers 96.5% of the 706 records, confirming this is fundamentally a food-composition field. A61K (medicinal preparations) at 44.8% and A61P (therapeutic activity) at 32.4% show substantial overlap with health-claim framing, while C12N (8.5%) and C12P (3.5%) — microorganism and fermentation routes — remain comparatively thin.
Shares are the percentage of the 706 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Infant Formula and Early Life Nutrition with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about infant formula and early life nutrition and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents shaping the field
Infant formula with a low-phosphorous protein component and defined lipid structure
The filing describes an infant formula built from a protein component with a phosphorous content below a specified threshold, paired with a lipid component selected for ease of digestion by an infant, optionally combined with prebiotic and viscosity-modifying components. The lipid component is further characterised by fatty acid triglyceride structure, including a defined share of palmitic acid residues — a fat-blend-structure claim rather than a simple ingredient list.Filed by N.V. Nutricia; see EP1062873A1 for full claim language.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2004112509A2 | Nutritional formula for optimal gut barrier function | 224 |
| 2 | US6077558A | Elemental nutritional products | 124 |
| 3 | US20070104700A1 | Nutritional formula for optimal gut barrier function | 118 |
| 4 | WO2001011990A1 | Composition for an infant formula having a low threonine content | 110 |
| 5 | US5589357A | Milk protein partial hydrolysate and process for preparation thereof | 108 |
| 6 | WO2006108824A1 | Infant formula with probiotics | 104 |
| 7 | EP0631731A1 | Milk protein partial hydrolysate and process for preparation thereof | 104 |
| 8 | WO2001041581A1 | Infant formula with improved protein content | 102 |
| 9 | US20030072865A1 | Infant formula with improved protein content | 101 |
| 10 | US5405637A | Milk protein partial hydrolysate and infant formula containing same | 91 |
Citation counts inside this corpus skew toward older filings, which have had more time to accumulate citations — read them as a signal of influence on later claim drafting, 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 data says about this field
Three patterns stand out once the records are aggregated: concentration among a small set of filers, a filing trend that has already peaked, and a technology mix skewed heavily toward food-composition claims rather than microbial or fermentation routes.
A five-company core, not a fragmented field
The top 5 assignees combined account for 612 of the 706 records in scope — 86.7% of the total. The top 10 combined reach 94.3%. Filing this space means filing into claim territory that a handful of large formula and nutrition companies have already mapped extensively.
Activity has already crested
Filings rose from 37 in 2017 to a peak of 51 in 2020, then fell to 14 by the 2022 midpoint. That trajectory reads as a field working through its core formulation claims rather than one still expanding into new territory.
Fermentation routes remain thin
A23L (foods) covers 96.5% of records and A23C (dairy) 29.9%, but C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) sits at just 3.5% and C12N (microorganisms) at 8.5%. Composition claims dominate; biosynthetic production routes are comparatively under-filed.
Gut-barrier-function claims anchor the field
The most-cited record in this corpus addresses nutritional formulas for optimal gut barrier function, cited 224 times, with a related filing on the same theme also ranking among the most-cited. Gut-function framing has clearly shaped how later claims are drafted.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to infant formula and early life nutrition, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it is open
The assignee ranking covers 100 companies, counted in records — it is the whole ranking the dataset returns, not a curated top list. A small group at the head of that ranking accounts for the great majority of filings, while recent-year momentum has slowed even for the leaders.
One filer well ahead of the rest
The leading assignee holds 206 records, against 35 at fifth place and 8 at tenth — a steep drop-off that confirms this is a leader-plus-core field rather than an evenly spread one.
Even leaders are filing less
The top-ranked assignee's latest-year filing count fell 33% year over year to just 2, and several other leading assignees show zero filings in the latest year — consistent with the field-wide decline visible in the trend data.
Co-filing is limited and internal
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairing links two entities within the same corporate group rather than an external research partner — collaboration here looks more like internal structuring than open co-development.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Societe des Produits Nestle SA (Switzerland) | 2 | -33% |
| Nestec SA | 0 | — |
| N.V. Nutricia | 0 | — |
| Abbott Laboratories Inc. | 0 | — |
| MJN US Holdings LLC | 0 | — |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 0 | — |
| Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. | 0 | — |
| Milk Care Co Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to go from here
The dataset points to specific questions worth running down before committing filing budget or freedom-to-operate review to this space.
Check freedom-to-operate against the core five
With 86.7% of records held by five assignees, any new filing in protein hydrolysate, fat blend, or micronutrient stability claims should be checked against those portfolios first, not the long tail.
Run an FTO screen in EurekaAssess the fermentation and microbiota white space
C12P and C12N together cover a small share of records relative to A23L and A23C — a first claim in enzymatic HMO synthesis or microbiota-linked fermentation processes may face less prior art than a composition claim.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the decline in filing momentum
Filing peaked in 2020 and has fallen since, including among the largest assignees. Confirm whether that reflects claim-space saturation or a shift toward trade secret protection before assuming the field is closing.
Monitor trends in EurekaCommon questions on infant formula patents
Highly concentrated. The top 5 assignees combined hold 612 of the 706 records in scope, which is 86.7% of the total, and the top 10 combined reach 94.3%. This means a small group of multinational formula and nutrition companies control the great majority of claim territory, and any new filing strategy needs to map against their portfolios specifically rather than against the field as a whole. The remaining assignees in the 100-company ranking each hold comparatively small counts.
No — filing activity peaked at 51 records in 2020 and has declined since, with the 2022 midpoint at just 14. The 2026 figure of 2 is a partial year and should be read with the roughly 18-month publication lag in mind, but the multi-year trend from 2020 onward is clearly downward rather than flat. This pattern suggests the field's core composition claims have largely been staked out.
EP1062873A1, filed by N.V. Nutricia, claims an infant formula with a protein component defined by a phosphorous content below a specified threshold, combined with an easily digestible lipid component, and optionally prebiotic and viscosity-modifying components. The lipid component is further specified by its fatty acid triglyceride structure, including a defined proportion of palmitic acid residues. This makes it a fat-blend-structure and protein-specification claim rather than a broad ingredient-list patent, so it constrains formulations matching those specific parameter ranges rather than infant formula generally.
Fermentation and enzymatic synthesis routes (IPC class C12P) appear in only 3.5% of the 706 records, and microorganism-related claims (C12N) appear in 8.5%, both well below the 96.5% coverage of general food-composition claims under A23L. This gap suggests biosynthetic and microbial production routes for ingredients like human milk oligosaccharides are comparatively open relative to the densely claimed composition and fat-blend space. Any first-filer claim there should still be checked against the specific leading assignees' portfolios before assuming it is genuinely clear.
The dataset's assignee ranking covers 100 companies, with the leader holding 206 records against 35 at fifth place and 8 at tenth — a steep drop that shows one filer well ahead of a small core group, followed by a long tail of much smaller filers. Recent-year momentum has slowed across this group, including a 33% year-over-year decline in the leader's latest-year count and zero recorded filings in the latest year for several other leading assignees. This combination of historical dominance and recent slowdown is worth factoring into any competitive assessment.
Research Infant Formula and Early Life Nutrition in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole infant formula and early life nutrition 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.