Paper-Based Packaging Fill and Seal Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
- Filing already peaked. Annual filings rose from zero in 2017 to 65 in 2022, then eased off — this is a maturing claim space, not a growing one.
- Laminate structure dominates the art. B32B layered-product claims appear in 136 of 215 families, more than double the next largest IPC subclass.
- The leading filer is pulling back. Tetra Laval, the strongest co-filing hub in the dataset, shows a 100% year-on-year drop in the latest filing year.
What this landscape covers
Paper-based packaging fill-and-seal technology sits at the intersection of barrier laminate chemistry and carton-forming machinery: the goal is a paperboard or fiber structure that can be formed, filled and heat-sealed at commercial line speeds while remaining recyclable or biodegradable. The 215 families in this dataset span 2015 through mid-2026 and cluster around replacing plastic barrier layers without sacrificing seal integrity, a problem that touches food, beverage and consumer-goods packaging lines simultaneously.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in the trend chart understate actual filing activity; treat the last one to two bars as a floor, not a ceiling.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 215-family dataset: when filings happened, and which technical subclasses carry the claim density.
Filings rose then flattened
From zero recorded filings in 2017, activity climbed to a peak of 65 in 2022, the dataset's midpoint year, before easing — a pattern consistent with a technology whose core claim space has already been staked out by early movers.
Laminate structure, not chemistry, carries the claim weight
B32B (layered products) accounts for 136 of 215 records, well ahead of D21H pulp/paper compositions (69) and B65D containers (61). Adhesives, coatings and polymer chemistry subclasses each sit in single digits, suggesting most applicants are claiming the laminate architecture rather than novel material chemistry.
Shares are the percentage of the 215 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Paper-Based Packaging Fill and Seal with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about paper-based packaging fill and seal and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this space
Multilayer metallized paper-based packaging material
The present invention relates to a cellulosic substrate comprising or consisting of a cellulose graft copolymer comprising polypeptide branches. The present invention also relates to a packaging material comprising at least one paper layer comprising or consisting of a cellulose graft copolymer comprising polypeptide branches, in particular a multi-layer metallized paper-based packaging material.Filed by Société des Produits Nestlé, published 2026-07-09 — one of the most recent records in the dataset, illustrating continued interest in cellulose-graft chemistry for metallized barrier layers.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20220112663A1 | Biodegradable and recyclable barrier paper laminate | 62 |
| 2 | US6382462B1 | Packaging | 54 |
| 3 | US6821373B1 | Method of producing a laminated packaging material | 48 |
| 4 | US20220112664A1 | Methods of producing biodegradable and recyclable barrier paper laminate | 30 |
| 5 | US20220033158A1 | Biodegradable paper barrier laminate | 30 |
| 6 | WO1999042375A1 | Improvements in or relating to packaging | 30 |
| 7 | WO2001017771A1 | A method of producing a laminated packaging material, and packaging containers produced from the packaging ma… | 27 |
| 8 | US7033455B1 | Method of producing a laminated packaging material | 19 |
| 9 | US20220034040A1 | Recyclable paper barrier laminate | 18 |
| 10 | WO2001017774A1 | A method of producing a laminated packaging material, and packaging containers produced from the packaging ma… | 18 |
Citation counts are drawn from a searched corpus and skew toward older, earlier-filed records — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a measure of current commercial importance.
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 patterns stand out once the raw counts are set against each other.
The laminate architecture is heavily claimed
Nearly two-thirds of records sit in B32B (layered products), against 69 in D21H pulp chemistry and 61 in B65D containers. New entrants filing on laminate structure alone are entering the most contested part of the map.
The growth phase has passed
Filings went from zero in 2017 to a peak of 65 in 2022 before easing off. Combined with the 18-month publication lag, this points to a technology where the core structural claims are largely staked, even if a handful of new applicants continue to file.
Europe leads receiving offices, narrowly
EPO (26), the United States (25) and WIPO/PCT (23) sit close together at the top, with Australia (16), Austria (12) and India (10) following. No single jurisdiction dominates, which matters for freedom-to-operate checks that only cover one region.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to paper-based packaging fill and seal, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. | JONASSON KATARINA | 3 |
| Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. | HALLIN HOLMGREN MAX | 3 |
| Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. | EHRENBERG EVA | 3 |
| Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. | ANNERFELDT MICHAEL | 3 |
| Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. | ANDERSSON THORBJORN | 3 |
| JONASSON KATARINA | HALLIN HOLMGREN MAX | 3 |
| JONASSON KATARINA | EHRENBERG EVA | 3 |
| JONASSON KATARINA | ANNERFELDT MICHAEL | 3 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the three strongest all link the same corporate filer to named individual inventors — a sign of internal R&D teams rather than cross-company joint development.
Assignee landscape and where the gaps sit
Filing activity concentrates around a small set of established packaging and food-and-beverage groups, with most recent-year momentum flat or negative — a pattern worth checking before assuming any single filer is still expanding aggressively.
The strongest co-filing hub has gone quiet
Tetra Laval shows the most co-assignee pairs in the dataset (three separate pairs at 3 each) but recorded zero filings in the latest year, a full drop from prior activity.
Nestlé remains active but is also slowing
Nestlé posted 4 filings in the latest year, still the highest count among tracked assignees, but that is down 67% year-on-year — consistent with the broader post-2022 cooling in the trend data.
Several established names show zero recent filings
Procter & Gamble, Danimer Scientific, Elopak and Mereadian Group all show zero filings in the latest tracked year, suggesting their core positions in this space were established earlier and are now being maintained rather than expanded.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. | 4 | -67% |
| Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. | 0 | -100% |
| The Procter & Gamble Company | 0 | — |
| Danimer Scientific | 0 | — |
| Elopak AS | 0 | — |
| Meredian Holdings Group, Inc. | 0 | — |
| JONASSON KATARINA | 0 | — |
| HALLIN HOLMGREN MAX | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a maturing but not closed field — the next steps depend on whether you're filing, licensing, or clearing a product design.
Check freedom-to-operate against the B32B cluster
With 136 of 215 families claiming laminate structures, a new barrier-paper design should be checked against this cluster specifically, not the dataset as a whole.
Run an FTO screen in EurekaWatch for renewed filing from quiet incumbents
Tetra Laval and several other named assignees show zero or sharply reduced recent-year filings; a pause is not the same as an exit, and renewed activity would be an early signal worth tracking.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaExplore the thinner IPC branches before filing broad
C08B, C08F and B05D each carry single-digit record counts against a 215-family base, suggesting narrower but more available claim space than the core laminate art.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
Filing activity in this dataset concentrates around a small group of large food, beverage and packaging groups, with Tetra Laval showing the strongest internal co-filing pattern (three separate co-assignee pairs) and Nestlé posting the highest count of filings in the most recent tracked year. However, several of these same assignees, including Tetra Laval, show zero filings in the latest year, so 'most patents overall' and 'most active right now' point to different companies. Anyone assessing competitive position should look at both the cumulative ranking and the recent-year momentum figures separately.
No — filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 65 in 2022, then declined, and the dataset's own midpoint year is also its peak year. That pattern typically indicates a technology whose core structural claims have already been staked out by early movers. Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the final one to two years in any such trend will always look lower than they eventually turn out to be, but the shape of the decline through 2022–2025 is unlikely to reverse into renewed growth.
Layered-product and laminate structure claims (IPC class B32B) appear in 136 of the 215 tracked families, more than double the next largest category, D21H pulp and paper compositions at 69. B65D container and packaging claims follow at 61. Adhesives, coatings and polymer chemistry subclasses each account for single-digit record counts, which means most applicants are protecting how the paper layers are structured and formed rather than inventing new barrier chemistries.
The thinnest IPC branches relative to the 215-family base are C08B (polysaccharide derivatives, 8 records), C08F (addition polymers, 7 records) and B05D (coating processes, 10 records). These sit adjacent to the heavily claimed B32B laminate cluster but have not attracted the same filing density, making them plausible entry points for narrower, more defensible claims on coating chemistry or polysaccharide-based barrier layers rather than laminate architecture itself.
US20260193843A1, filed by Société des Produits Nestlé and published 2026-07-09, claims a cellulosic substrate built from a cellulose graft copolymer with polypeptide branches, used in a multilayer metallized paper-based packaging material. It is one of the most recently published records in this dataset, so its practical blocking effect is still emerging and will depend on how broadly its claims are ultimately allowed. Anyone designing a metallized paper barrier layer using cellulose graft chemistry with peptide branching should review this filing's claim scope directly rather than relying on the abstract alone.
Research Paper-Based Packaging Fill and Seal in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole paper-based packaging fill and seal 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.