Noodle and Pasta Processing Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 81.4% concentration. The top 5 assignees combine for 48 of the 59 records in scope — a field where a handful of filers have shaped most of the claim space.
- Foods and dough classes dominate. A23L covers 93.2% of records and A21D 44.1%, while dough-handling machinery (A21C) and shaping (A23P) each sit at just 8.5% — machinery claims are comparatively thin.
- Filing has not built into a steady climb. Activity was at zero in 2017 and peaked at 6 records in 2024, with too few complete recent years to state a growth rate.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 59 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This review scopes 59 published records filed or published between 2015 and the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, matched on noodle and pasta processing terms combined with process-specific language: sheeting and rolling, alkaline salt treatment, drying curve control, cooking loss, texture firmness and surface checking. The intersection is narrow by design — it isolates process and formulation claims rather than every food-technology filing that happens to mention noodles or pasta.
Because publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, the most recent year in any trend line understates real activity; treat 2025 and 2026 figures as a floor, not a ceiling. Family-level counts are used throughout rather than raw document counts, so continuation filings and multi-jurisdiction copies of the same invention are not double-counted.
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 59-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings sat at zero in 2017 and rose unevenly to a peak of 6 records in 2024. The 2025-2026 window is still filling in given the publication lag, so the apparent tail-off should not be read as a slowdown.
IPC subclass distribution
A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) touches 93.2% of the 59 records and A21D (baking; doughs) 44.1%, confirming this is primarily a formulation and food-composition field. A23K (animal feed) at 25.4% signals meaningful cross-over into feed applications. Mechanical classes — A21C dough-handling machines and A23P shaping — sit at just 8.5% each, the thinnest-claimed process steps in the set.
Shares are the percentage of the 59 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Noodle and Pasta Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about noodle and pasta processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative recent filing
WO2024258936A2 — Improved edible compositions comprising an improved Chlamydomonas reinhardtii component
The application claims a foodstuff built from wholemeal Chlamydomonas reinhardtii biomass that is higher in protein and substantially starchless, aimed at delivering algal protein or pigment without raising glycemic index or calorie load. It positions ingredient substitution and processing flexibility — flavor, texture, shape, viscosity, rheology and color — as the functional payoff of the starchless algal component.Filed by Kuehnle AgroSystems, published 2024-12-19.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050118326A1 | Reduced digestible carbohydrate food having reduced blood glucose response | 186 |
| 2 | US5063072A | One-step flavored pasta products and processes for preparing fast cooking pasta products | 68 |
| 3 | WO2005036971A1 | Reduced digestible carbohydrate food having reduced blood glucose response | 40 |
| 4 | US20060134295A1 | High-fiber, high-protein pasta and noodle products | 26 |
| 5 | US5089284A | Method for making extruded pasta shapes | 20 |
| 6 | US5192543A | Heated die plate for making extruded pasta shapes | 19 |
| 7 | US8128977B2 | Reduced digestible carbohydrate food having reduced blood glucose response | 16 |
| 8 | US5462758A | Method of making macaroni or noodle products using a low moisture content alimentary paste | 15 |
| 9 | US20110038984A1 | Reduced digestible carbohydrate food having reduced blood glucose response | 14 |
| 10 | WO2003065822A1 | Improved pasta product and method for preparation thereof | 11 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus; read 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 data means for filing strategy
Three read-throughs from the concentration, class distribution and citation data above.
The claim space is not evenly held
With the top 5 assignees combining for 48 of the 59 records in scope, and the top 10 reaching 93.2%, this is a field where a small group of filers has already staked out most of the accessible claim territory. A new entrant should expect to design around existing formulation and process claims rather than file into open space.
Machinery claims are thin relative to formulation claims
A21C (dough handling machines) and A23P (food shaping) each cover only 8.5% of the 59 records, against 93.2% for A23L and 44.1% for A21D. The imbalance suggests process-formulation claims — alkaline salt treatment, drying curves, texture control — are far more densely occupied than the physical equipment that executes them.
Influence sits with older glycemic-response and pasta-forming patents
The most-cited records in scope address reduced digestible carbohydrate foods and extruded pasta shapes, some dating to the early 1990s. Their citation counts reflect time in the corpus more than present-day relevance, but they mark the technical baseline that later filings had to cite around.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to noodle and pasta processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing and where activity is moving
The ranking covers 27 companies with families in scope — the entire set the data endpoint returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
One filer well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 17 of the 59 records in scope, well clear of fifth place at 5 and tenth place at 1. That gap is the clearest evidence of an entrenched position rather than a crowded, evenly-contested field.
A long tail of single- and few-filing entrants
Beyond the top 10 (which already accounts for 93.2% of records), the remaining ranked companies each hold only a handful of families. That pattern is typical of a mature niche: a core group defends its position while smaller players file narrowly around specific ingredients or process steps.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated in one pairing
Ten co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with one pairing — Tungland Bryan Craig and Anfinsen Jon R — appearing together on 5 records, notably stronger than the next pairings at 2 each. Most assignees otherwise file independently.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| RAISIO | 0 | — |
| Techcom Group LLC | 0 | — |
| Bodean Inc. | 0 | — |
| TUNGLAND BRYAN CRAIG | 0 | — |
| KUEHNLE AGROSYST | 0 | — |
| ANFINSEN JON R | 0 | — |
| WOO KYUNGSOO | 0 | — |
| STREEKSTRA HUGO | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated core and a thinly-claimed periphery. Two directions follow from that.
Map the leader's claim boundaries
With one assignee holding 17 of 59 records, a claim-by-claim read of their portfolio shows exactly what a new filing would need to design around, particularly in alkaline salt treatment and drying curve control.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches
Dough-handling machinery and shaping classes sit at 8.5% of records each, well below the formulation classes. A first claim drafted around equipment design rather than composition may face less prior art.
Run a white space search in EurekaFrequently asked questions
Within this 59-record dataset, one assignee leads with 17 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 5. The top 5 assignees together account for 81.4% of all records in scope, and the top 10 reach 93.2%, so filing activity is heavily concentrated rather than spread evenly across the 27 ranked companies. Anyone evaluating freedom to operate should start with that leading assignee's portfolio before looking further down the ranking.
The dataset is dominated by food-composition claims: A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) appears in 93.2% of the 59 records and A21D (baking and doughs) in 44.1%. A23K (animal feed) shows up in 25.4% of records, indicating real cross-over into feed applications. Mechanical classes for dough handling and shaping equipment are comparatively rare, each covering only 8.5% of records, which points to formulation and process-parameter claims being far more densely filed than machinery claims.
The trend moved from zero filings in 2017 to a peak of 6 records in 2024, but there are not enough complete recent years to calculate a reliable growth rate, especially once the typical eighteen-month publication lag is accounted for. The 2025 and 2026 figures in particular will understate actual filing activity because many recent applications have not yet published. Readers should treat the most recent two years as incomplete rather than as evidence of a slowdown.
WO2024258936A2, filed by Kuehnle AgroSystems and published 2024-12-19, claims a foodstuff built from wholemeal Chlamydomonas reinhardtii biomass that is higher in protein and substantially starchless, intended to deliver algal protein or pigment without raising a food's glycemic index or calorie content. The claims center on the starchless algal ingredient and its effect on flavor, texture, shape, viscosity, rheology and color when substituted into food compositions. For noodle and pasta applications specifically, it is most relevant to anyone formulating alternative-protein or low-glycemic products rather than to conventional wheat-based processing.
The class distribution suggests dough-handling machinery (A21C) and food-shaping equipment (A23P), each at just 8.5% of the 59 records, are comparatively under-claimed relative to formulation classes like A23L at 93.2%. Surface-checking prevention during drying and feed-grade use of noodle processing byproducts also appear only thinly represented in the citation and class data. A first claim in these areas would likely face less densely-occupied prior art than one drafted around core dough or noodle composition.
Research Noodle and Pasta Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole noodle and pasta 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.