Oil Degumming Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 51.8% of all 851 records sit with just five assignees, so most new filers are competing for space around a small set of enzymatic degumming claims rather than an open field.
- Filings grew 122% from 2021 to 2024 (9 to 20 in that span), the clearest complete-year evidence that enzymatic and phospholipase-based degumming is still an active filing area, not a settled one.
- A single 1998 phospholipase filing carries 440 citations — more than three times the next most-cited record — and still anchors freedom-to-operate analysis in this field today.
Filing growth compares 2021 (9 records) with 2024 (20) — 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 851 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the oil degumming and neutralization patent record actually covers
Oil degumming and neutralization is the step in edible-oil refining where phospholipids, gums and free fatty acids are stripped out before an oil is fit for market. The patent record in scope here — 851 records published between 2015 and mid-2026 — spans chemical routes built on citric acid dosing and caustic neutralization, alongside enzymatic routes built on phospholipase treatment, soapstock handling and lecithin recovery. The enzymatic side dominates the claim language: microorganism and fermentation classes appear across roughly half the corpus, which tells you where the drafting activity has concentrated even though the underlying unit operation is decades old.
Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. Treat 2024 as the most recent year with a complete picture, and read 2025-2026 as filling in rather than declining.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 851-record corpus: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings ran from 10 in 2017 to a peak of 41 in 2018, then settled into a lower but rising band — 9 in 2021 climbing to 20 in 2024, a 122% increase over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag and should not be read as a slowdown.
IPC subclass composition
C11B (fatty oils and waxes production) touches 59.5% of the 851 records, with C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) close behind at 49.9% and C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) at 38.7% — a strong signal that enzymatic routes, not just mechanical or chemical ones, now dominate active claim drafting. Food-application classes like A23L and A23D sit well behind at around 11-12% each, marking them as secondary rather than core filing targets.
Shares are the percentage of the 851 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Oil Degumming and Neutralization with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about oil degumming and neutralization and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records anchoring this field
US20180251704A1 — Compositions and methods for oil degumming (Keclon SA, 2018-09-06)
The present disclosure provides compositions and methods for enzymatic oil degumming.Filed against a backdrop where a 1998 phospholipase filing already carried 440 citations — this record sits downstream of that foundational claim rather than displacing it.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO1998026057A1 | Reduction of phosphorus containing components in edible oils comprising a high amount of non-hydratable phosp… | 440 |
| 2 | US6103505A | Method for reducing phosphorus content of edible oils | 182 |
| 3 | EP0869167A2 | Reduction of phosphorus containing components in edible oils comprising a high amount of non-hydratable phosp… | 139 |
| 4 | WO1998018912A1 | Novel phospholipase, production and use thereof | 139 |
| 5 | WO2003089620A2 | Phospholipases, nucleic acids encoding them and methods for making and using them | 138 |
| 6 | US6143545A | Method for reducing phosphorus content of edible oils | 122 |
| 7 | WO2005032496A2 | Hydrolases, nucleic acids encoding them and mehods for making and using them | 121 |
| 8 | US7226771B2 | Phospholipases, nucleic acids encoding them and methods for making and using them | 118 |
| 9 | US6162623A | Processes for preparing and using immobilized lipases | 115 |
| 10 | WO2006008508A1 | Enzymatic oil-degumming method | 101 |
Citation counts reflect a searched corpus and skew toward older filings; read them as a measure of influence on later claim drafting, not as a signal of which patents are currently most valuable.
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 readings of the same dataset, each pointing at a different practical question: where claim space is occupied, where it is thin, and who is still moving.
The top of the field is tightly held
Five assignees account for just over half of all 851 records in scope, with the leader alone holding 127. That concentration sits almost entirely on enzymatic phospholipase claims rather than on chemical neutralization, which is why a freedom-to-operate review for an enzymatic route needs to start with those five before anything else.
Enzymatic filing activity is accelerating, not cooling
Filings rose from 9 in 2021 to 20 in 2024, the last year the dataset treats as complete. That is a genuine acceleration in a field that already peaked once, in 2018 at 41 filings, which argues against writing this off as a mature, settled unit operation.
One 1998 filing still shapes freedom-to-operate
WO1998026057A1, on phospholipase treatment of high-phosphorus edible oils, carries 440 citations — more than double the next four most-cited records combined by rough proportion. Any enzymatic degumming claim drafted today is almost certainly citing back to this lineage, directly or through an intermediate filing.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to oil degumming and neutralization, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it thins out
The ranked leaders sit on enzymatic and phospholipase-heavy portfolios; below the top ten, filing activity spreads into a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants working narrower process variants.
One filer holds the deepest position
The leading assignee's 127 records are built substantially on enzymatic phospholipase treatment claims, the same lineage that produced the most-cited record in this dataset. Its portfolio depth makes it the first stop for any competitive clearance search in enzymatic degumming.
A cluster, not a cliff, below the leader
Fifth place holds 42 records and tenth place holds 25 — a gradual taper rather than a sharp drop, meaning the top ten collectively account for 70.4% of all 851 records. Displacing any one of these players requires clearing enzymatic or soapstock-handling claims, not just chemical dosing claims.
Recent-year filings are thin across nearly every leader
Most of the leading assignees show zero or a single filing in the latest year, and one shows an 80% year-on-year drop — but this reads more as publication lag than retreat, since 2025-2026 data is still filling in. It is not yet safe to read strategic withdrawal from these numbers.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Novozymes A/S | 1 | -80% |
| Wilmar (Shanghai) Biotechnology Research & Development Center Co., Ltd. | 1 | — |
| International N&H Denmark ApS | 0 | — |
| DSM IP Assets B.V. | 0 | — |
| Bunge Oils, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Verenium Corporation | 0 | — |
| ARISDYNE SYSTEMS INC | 0 | — |
| Diversa Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is clearance, licensing, or building a new filing position.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the top holders
Start with the assignees holding the deepest enzymatic phospholipase portfolios before drafting any new degumming claim, since over half of all 851 records concentrate there.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaMap the citation lineage from the 1998 phospholipase filing
Trace how later filings, including the 2018 Keclon record, build on or design around the most-cited prior art to understand which claim elements are truly blocking.
Trace citation networks in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches for a first-filing position
Citric acid dosing controls and soapstock-derived lecithin recovery show thinner filing density than the core enzymatic routes, making them worth a claim-drafting feasibility pass.
Analyze white space in EurekaCommon questions on oil degumming and neutralization patents
The leading assignee in this dataset holds 127 of the 851 records in scope, with the next four ranked assignees bringing the top five to a combined 441 records, or 51.8% of the field. That concentration is built heavily on enzymatic phospholipase treatment claims rather than chemical neutralization. Anyone assessing competitive position should treat these five as the baseline clearance check before looking further down the ranking.
The IPC composition strongly favors enzymatic and fermentation-related classes: C12N appears in 49.9% of the 851 records and C12P in 38.7%, both well ahead of the food-application classes tied to chemical processing routes. This does not mean chemical neutralization has disappeared from practice, but it does mean the active claim drafting in this corpus is concentrated on enzymatic methods. A search strategy that only covers citric acid dosing or caustic treatment will miss most of the current filing activity.
Complete-year data shows filings rising from 9 in 2021 to 20 in 2024, a 122% increase, after an earlier peak of 41 filings in 2018. The 2025 and 2026 figures look lower only because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so those years are still filling in rather than showing a genuine decline. Read the 2021-2024 trend as the reliable signal of current momentum.
US20180251704A1, filed by Keclon SA, covers compositions and methods for enzymatic oil degumming, and it sits downstream of the field's most-cited prior art rather than displacing it. A new entrant working on enzymatic degumming compositions needs to check this filing's specific claim scope alongside the 1998 phospholipase lineage that underlies most of the field. It does not block chemical neutralization routes, which sit outside its claim language.
Filing density is markedly thinner in areas like citric acid dosing optimization for water degumming, soapstock-derived lecithin recovery yield claims, and non-hydratable phosphorus pretreatment methods, compared to the dense enzymatic phospholipase core. These branches sit adjacent to heavily claimed territory but are not yet saturated, making them reasonable targets for a first claim rather than a design-around. Any filing there should still be checked against the top-ranked assignees' broader portfolios before proceeding.
Research Oil Degumming and Neutralization in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole oil degumming and neutralization 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.