Infant Formula Protein Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Dairy-class claims dominate. A23C accounts for 68.1% of the 69 records in scope, more than any other IPC subclass tracked here.
- One assignee leads a ranked field of 12. The leader holds 23 families against a fifth-place count of 8 and a tenth-place count of 2 — a steep drop after the top position.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak. The trend ran 7 filings in 2017 and reads 0 in the most recent year, though publication lag understates the last year or two.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 69 published patent records filed against infant formula protein and lipid composition — claims touching whey-casein ratio, alpha-lactalbumin content, structured lipids, milk fat globule membrane, degree of hydrolysis and amino acid profile. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, spanning dairy processing, fermentation and enzymatic synthesis, and the analytical methods used to characterise these formulations.
Because a single family can carry claims across several IPC subclasses at once, the technology composition below is read as share of the 69-record total, not as a partition of it. Patent families, rather than raw document counts, are the fairer unit for judging where competitive claim density actually sits.
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same 69 records: filings by year, and the IPC subclasses those filings claim into.
Filing trend, 2015-2026
Filings peaked at 7 in 2017 and have declined since, reaching 0 in the most recent year on record. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years understate real filing activity and should not be read as a genuine drop-off yet.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A23C (dairy products) touches 68.1% of the 69 records, well ahead of A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) at 43.5%. The enzymatic and microbial classes — C12Q, C12N and C12P — each sit near or above 30%, showing that a large share of this field's claims are analytical or biosynthetic rather than purely formulation-based.
Shares are the percentage of the 69 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Infant Formula Protein and Lipid Composition with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about infant formula protein and lipid composition and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Analytical method for the determination of infant formula protein digestibility in vitro (US20040047954A1)
A method for in vitro determination of the digestibility of proteins in a nutritional product. The method utilised gastric and intestinal enzymes standardised for an in vitro digestion process that mimics the in vivo digestive process. Specificity in digestion is determined by an amino acid profile.Filed by Abbott Laboratories, published 2004-03-11.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2005051091A1 | Mimetic lipids and dietary supplements comprising the same | 271 |
| 2 | WO2015078505A1 | Use of nutritional compositions having a low protein amount | 29 |
| 3 | US7651716B2 | Methods for reducing adverse effects of feeding formula to infants | 14 |
| 4 | US20050142249A1 | Methods for reducing adverse effects of feeding formula to infants | 12 |
| 5 | US20160302464A1 | Use of nutritional compositions having a low protein amount | 10 |
| 6 | US20040047954A1 | Analytical method for the determination of infant formula protein digestibility in vitro | 6 |
| 7 | WO2005051091A8 | Mimetic lipids and dietary supplements comprising the same | 5 |
| 8 | WO2004020653A2 | Analytical method for the determination of infant formula protein digestibility in vitro | 3 |
| 9 | WO2021021765A1 | Nutritive compositions with bioactive proteins | 2 |
| 10 | CN1678752A | 用于体外测定婴儿配方食品的蛋白质可消化性的分析方法 | 2 |
Citation counts reward older filings inside this searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the assignee ranking, filing trend and IPC mix are read together.
One firm holds a clear lead, then a steep drop
The leading assignee sits on 23 families, more than double the fifth-place count of 8, and the ranking thins fast down to 2 families at tenth place. That gap suggests the leader has broad coverage across several sub-branches rather than a single blocking claim.
Dairy-processing claims crowd the core
Over two-thirds of records in scope sit in A23C, meaning most new filings compete directly against an already dense body of dairy-product prior art. Formulation claims aimed squarely at whey-casein ratio or globule membrane composition are entering the most contested part of the field.
Activity has cooled since a 2017 peak
The filing trend peaked at 7 in 2017 and has fallen since, reading 0 in the most recent year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, the true 2025-2026 filing level is likely understated rather than genuinely zero.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to infant formula protein and lipid composition, with the prior art for and against each one.
The assignee landscape
Twelve companies make up the entire ranked field this dataset returns — this is not a top-50 or top-100 cut, it is the whole list.
A dominant single filer
The top assignee's family count is more than double that of the fifth-ranked player, pointing to sustained, multi-branch investment in this claim space rather than a single defensive filing.
A cluster of mid-sized filers
Beneath the leader sits a group of assignees filing in the single digits, spanning dairy processors and specialty ingredient firms rather than one dominant challenger.
A long tail of narrow filers
The bottom of the ranked field drops to 2 families, consistent with entrants — including smaller biotech and individual-inventor filers — protecting a single formulation or method rather than building a portfolio.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Abbott Laboratories | 0 | — |
| Nestec S.A. | 0 | — |
| Societe des Produits Nestle SA | 0 | — |
| Arla Foods amba | 0 | — |
| FrieslandCampina Nederland B.V. | 0 | -100% |
| Evolve BioSystems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Wyeth | 0 | — |
| Enzymotec Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with one entrenched leader, dense core claims and several thinner adjacent branches worth a closer look.
Map the white space precisely
Run a claim-level search against the under-claimed sub-areas identified here before committing formulation work to the crowded A23C core.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the leader's recent activity
Publication lag means the last one to two filing years are incomplete; monitor the leading assignee's newest filings as they surface.
Set up monitoring in EurekaStress-test freedom to operate
Before finalising a protein or lipid formulation, check it against the most-cited records in this set for overlapping claim language.
Run an FTO check in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The assignee ranking in this dataset returns 12 companies, with the leader holding 23 families compared with 8 at fifth place and 2 at tenth place. That gap indicates one company has built broad coverage rather than a single narrow claim. The full ranking spans major dairy processors and smaller specialty ingredient and biotech firms, so leadership by family count does not necessarily mean leadership across every sub-branch, such as structured lipids or globule membrane isolation.
A23C, the dairy products IPC subclass, appears in 68.1% of the 69 records in scope, making it the single most claimed area. A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) follows at 43.5%, and several enzymatic and microbial classes — C12Q, C12N and C12P — each sit near or above 30%. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares overlap rather than partition the dataset, which means most filings combine a dairy-formulation claim with an analytical or biosynthetic one.
Filings peaked at 7 in 2017 and the trend has declined since, reading 0 in the most recent year. Publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the last one to two years in any patent trend understate real activity rather than reflecting an actual stop. A genuine growth rate cannot be computed from this window because fewer than four complete years remain once that lag is accounted for.
US20040047954A1, filed by Abbott Laboratories, claims a method for in vitro determination of infant formula protein digestibility, using gastric and intestinal enzymes standardised to mimic the in vivo digestive process, with specificity determined by amino acid profile. It is a testing and analytical method rather than a formulation claim, so it does not by itself block a particular protein or lipid composition. Anyone relying on an in vitro digestibility assay as part of a formulation development or quality-control workflow should review its claim scope directly rather than assume it only covers Abbott's own products.
The IPC composition shows dense claim coverage in A23C and A23L but comparatively thinner activity in specific sub-branches such as structured lipid delivery systems, targeted degree-of-hydrolysis control and alpha-lactalbumin enrichment processes. These are adjacent to the crowded dairy core rather than outside it, so a new filing there still needs to be checked against the most-cited records for overlapping method or composition language. The long tail in the assignee ranking, down to 2 families at tenth place, also suggests room for narrowly scoped filings that a single-branch entrant could still defend.
Research Infant Formula Protein and Lipid Composition in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole infant formula protein and lipid composition 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.