Meat Byproduct & Rendering Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 44.1% of all 211 records sit with just five assignees, so most of the field's claim space is already staked before a newcomer files.
- Filing has plateaued, not grown 2021 and 2024 both sit at 7 filings — a flat three-year span, not the ramp the peak year of 19 (2023) might suggest.
- C11B and A23L dominate the classing fatty-oil extraction and food-use claims cover more than a third of records each, while edible-fat finishing (A23D, 8.5%) stays comparatively thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (7 records) with 2024 (7) — 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 211 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Meat byproduct and rendering processing spans the mechanical and chemical steps that turn slaughter residues into usable outputs: fat separation, protein meal recovery, keratin hydrolysis, and the odour and energy controls that make continuous rendering commercially workable. The 211 records in scope run from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off and were pulled using claim and description language tied to protein meal, fat separation, odour abatement, energy consumption and value recovery — so the set is weighted toward process patents rather than end-product formulations.
The picture is one of an established, moderately concentrated field: a handful of long-running rendering and separation specialists hold a large share of the record count, filing activity has been essentially flat for several years, and the technical classing clusters heavily around fat extraction and feed/food use rather than newer adjacent processing steps.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 211-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
A flat trend after a 2023 peak
Filings ran from 7 in 2017 to a peak of 19 in 2023, then eased back. Comparing 2021 to 2024 — the last year that publication lag lets us treat as complete — filings held at 7, a 0% change. Read the 2025-2026 dip as reporting lag, not real decline: publication typically trails filing by around 18 months.
Fat extraction and food/feed use lead the classing
C11B (fatty oils and waxes production) appears on 37.4% of the 211 records, closely followed by A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) at 36.0% and A23K (animal feed) at 33.2%. B01D separation processes and A22C meat/fish processing sit in the middle of the range, while A23D edible oils and fats, at 8.5%, is the thinnest of the eight classes tracked here — a signal worth checking against the white-space discussion below.
Shares are the percentage of the 211 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Meat Byproduct and Rendering Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about meat byproduct and rendering processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents shaping the field
CA1156086A — Low energy rendering process for separating and recovering stabilized dry fat and proteinaceous materials
The filing describes an integrated continuous low-energy rendering process that feeds raw organic material — a mixture of raw bone and raw meat tissue, for example — into a screw-type press without pre-heating or fine grinding. The press extrudes fat and soft low-density proteinaceous material separately from the denser bone and sinew fraction, producing stabilized fat, protein meal, and gelatin or glue stock from a single continuous line.Filed by Darling-Delaware Co., Inc., published 1983-11-01.
View full record →| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4172073A | Method for the preparation of water-soluble keratinaceous protein using saturated steam and water | 71 |
| 2 | US4176199A | Extraction of protein from edible beef bones and product | 59 |
| 3 | US5552176A | Pet food premix preparation | 46 |
| 4 | US3263592A | Apparatus for processing fatcontaining solids | 45 |
| 5 | US2911421A | Grinding and rendering of fat containing tissue | 45 |
| 6 | US4361590A | Process for separating and recovering fat and proteinaceous material from raw organic material | 39 |
| 7 | US4389423A | Process for the production of powdered protein materials from animal raw material | 32 |
| 8 | US3295982A | Continuous rendering method and apparatus | 30 |
| 9 | US5650187A | Process for making a low meat product | 28 |
| 10 | US20080152567A1 | Gas absorption system, composition, and method | 27 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this corpus — treat this as a measure of influence on later filers, 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 say
Three figures from the dataset that matter more for a filing decision than the raw record count.
The top of the field is dense
Five assignees account for 93 of the 211 records in scope. The leader alone holds 32 records, more than double the fifth-place assignee's 13 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one.
Activity has plateaued, not accelerated
The peak year, 2023 at 19 filings, sits inside an otherwise flat multi-year span. Anyone reading the 2023 spike as sustained growth should note that 2024 filings returned to the 2021 level.
Fat extraction is crowded; edible-fat finishing is not
C11B (fatty oils and waxes production) and A23L (food use) each cover more than a third of records, while A23D (edible oils and fats) covers only 8.5% — the widest gap among the eight classes tracked.
US and EPO lead, PCT filing is moderate
The United States (48) and the European Patent Office (39) are the two largest receiving offices, with WIPO/PCT filings at 22 — lower than either major national/regional office, suggesting most applicants pursue direct national or regional routes rather than broad PCT coverage first.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to meat byproduct and rendering processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The assignee ranking covers 68 companies counted in records — the whole set the data endpoint returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut. Recent-year momentum has gone quiet across the leading names, which is either a maturity signal or a publication-lag artefact depending on how recently they last filed.
A single name holds outsized share
The leading assignee's 32 records are more than double the fifth-placed assignee's 13, meaning the field's top slot is not closely contested even though the broader ranked list runs to 68 names.
Most assignees hold only a handful of records
With the top 10 accounting for 63.5% of all 211 records, the remaining 58 names in the ranking split the rest — typically single-digit filing counts each, consistent with equipment specialists, universities and individual inventors entering with narrow, specific claims.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet at the top
Every one of the leading assignees tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, this is likely to be understated rather than a genuine stop in R&D.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Alfa Laval Corporate AB | 0 | — |
| Dynasep LLC | 0 | — |
| Industria Tecnica Pecuaria SA | 0 | — |
| PINCHES DAVID KENNETH | 0 | — |
| Accudyne Systems | 0 | — |
| Clemson University Research Foundation | 0 | — |
| DARLING DELAWARE CO INC | 0 | — |
| STEEN RESEARCH LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to specific questions worth running further before committing a filing strategy.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top 5
With 44.1% of all 211 records concentrated in five assignees, any new filing in fat separation or protein meal recovery should be checked against their specific claim scope first, not just the field average.
Explore assignee claim scope →Test the under-claimed branches for real demand
A23D edible-fat finishing and odour-abatement claims sit well below the field's core classes. Before treating that as white space, confirm it reflects low interest rather than claims filed under a different classification.
Run a deeper technology-class query →Watch for the 2025-2026 lag to resolve
The apparent falloff after 2023 partly reflects publication lag rather than a real slowdown. Re-check filing counts for 2025 once more records have published before drawing conclusions about direction.
Track filing trend updates →Common questions on this landscape
The dataset ranks 68 assignees by record count, and the field is noticeably top-heavy: the leading assignee holds 32 of the 211 records in scope, more than double the 13 records held by the fifth-placed assignee. The top five assignees combined account for 44.1% of all records, and the top ten reach 63.5%. Below that line, the remaining names in the ranking typically hold only a handful of records each, so the practical competitive set to watch closely is much smaller than the full ranked list.
Neither, on the most reliable comparison available. Filings rose to a peak of 19 in 2023 but comparing 2021 to 2024 — the last year with enough time to be considered essentially complete — shows filings flat at 7 in both years, a 0% change. The lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 are very likely a publication-lag artefact, since patent publication typically trails the actual filing date by around 18 months, rather than a genuine drop in R&D activity.
Fat extraction and processing (IPC class C11B) appears on 37.4% of the 211 records, the single largest class, followed closely by food-use claims (A23L) at 36.0% and animal feed applications (A23K) at 33.2%. Protein and peptide recovery (A23J) covers 26.1% of records. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these percentages overlap rather than sum to 100%, but the pattern is consistent: claim density is highest around fat and protein recovery mechanics, not around downstream edible-fat refining.
The technology composition data points to edible oils and fats finishing (A23D), which covers only 8.5% of the 211 records — the thinnest of the eight classes tracked, well below the 37.4% seen for core fat-extraction claims. Odour abatement and keratin hydrolysis for protein recovery from feather or hoof material also appear less densely represented relative to the core fat-and-protein-recovery classes. Any claim aimed at these areas should still be checked against the leading assignees' existing filings, since low class density can also reflect claims filed under a different or adjacent classification rather than genuinely open ground.
CA1156086A, filed by Darling-Delaware Co., Inc. and published in 1983, describes a continuous low-energy rendering process that presses raw organic material — a mix of bone and meat tissue, for example — without pre-heating or fine grinding, separating fat and soft proteinaceous material from denser bone and sinew in a single pass. Its core contribution, using mechanical pressing rather than heat to achieve the separation, sits close to the mechanism many later continuous rendering processes still rely on. Its practical relevance today depends on its legal status and jurisdiction, but the process concept it describes is a useful reference point for any new continuous, low-energy separation claim in this field, and its high citation count (45 within this dataset's most-cited group) confirms it has shaped a good deal of later filing language.
Research Meat Byproduct and Rendering Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole meat byproduct and rendering processing 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.