Pet Food Patents: Who Leads, Where Filings Are Cooling 2026
- Filings peaked in 2017 at 107 records and have declined toward single digits by the most recent full year, though publication lag means the last 12-18 months are understated.
- One assignee holds 287 records against a fifth-place count of just 80 a steep drop-off that signals a dominant filer rather than an even field.
- Animal feed classifications (A23K) dominate the technology mix at 1,047 class hits, far ahead of foods and non-alcoholic beverages (A23L) at 166 and medicinal preparations (A61K) at 131.
What the dataset covers
This landscape draws on 616 published patent records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine pet food or companion animal nutrition subject matter with technical claim language covering palatability enhancers, extrusion processing, digestibility, functional ingredients or shelf stability, classified under the animal-feed IPC group A23K. The scope is deliberately narrow: it captures the processing and formulation science behind commercial pet food rather than general veterinary or animal-husbandry patents.
Records span six major receiving offices, from United States and European filings through to China, giving a reasonably global read on where applicants seek protection rather than just where they are headquartered.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 616-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those records classify across the IPC system.
A 2017 peak followed by a steady decline
Filings ran at 107 in 2017, the highest point in the window, then fell through a 2022 midpoint of 25 to just 4 in the most recent year. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years of that decline will fill in somewhat as more applications publish, but the broader downward slope from 2017 predates that effect and looks structural rather than a reporting artefact.
Animal feed claims dominate the classification mix
A23K (animal feed) carries 1,047 class hits, well ahead of A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) at 166 and A61K (medicinal preparations) at 131. Smaller but active clusters sit in A23J (proteins and food peptides) and A23P (food shaping and forming), each at 42, with A21C (dough handling machinery) and C07K (peptides and proteins) trailing at 14 and 13. Because a single record can carry more than one IPC class, these counts should be read as filing density by subject area, not as shares of the 616-record total.
Shares are the percentage of 1,646 class assignments (one record can carry several), not of the record count.
Go deeper on Pet Food and Companion Animal Nutrition with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pet food and companion animal nutrition and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in the corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050112259A1 | Pet food composition having enhanced palatability | 56 |
| 2 | US20050031673A1 | Pet food product and method of manufacture | 36 |
| 3 | US4784860A | Pet food | 34 |
| 4 | US20030138547A1 | Weight management system for animals | 31 |
| 5 | US20100303951A1 | Delivering an Active Ingredient in Pet Food | 27 |
| 6 | US20050084517A1 | Food product for hairball treatment | 26 |
| 7 | US20140227386A1 | Palatability enhancers comprising free amino acids for use in pet foods | 25 |
| 8 | US7842329B2 | Pet food product and method of manufacture | 24 |
| 9 | WO2019185888A1 | Novel use of tocopherols | 22 |
| 10 | US20180064140A1 | Compositions and methods for modulating gastrointestinal microflora in a canine | 22 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations; treat this table as a signal of influence on the field, not of what is currently most defensible.
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 read-throughs from the trend, classification and citation data above.
The category has cooled sharply since 2017
Filings dropped from a 2017 peak of 107 to a 2022 midpoint of 25 and just 4 in the latest year. Some of that final drop reflects publication lag rather than a real stop in filing activity, but the multi-year slide from 2017 through 2022 is too long to explain away with lag alone.
Claim density sits overwhelmingly in animal feed formulation
A23K classifications outnumber the next-largest class, A23L, by a wide margin, with A61K medicinal-preparation claims close behind A23L. That concentration means core feed-formulation claim space is heavily occupied, while adjacent therapeutic and shaping/forming classes carry comparatively lighter filing density.
One filer sits well clear of the rest of the ranked field
The leading assignee holds 287 records against 80 for the fifth-ranked company and 13 for the tenth, a steep drop-off across the ranked leaders. That shape points to a dominant filer setting the pace on core claims, with a long tail of companies filing far less frequently.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to pet food and companion animal nutrition, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where momentum has gone quiet
The ranked field runs 100 companies deep, counted in records rather than families-per-company, with a steep gap between the leader and the rest.
A single company holds the largest share of the ranked field
The top-ranked assignee's record count is more than three times the fifth-place figure of 80, a gap wide enough to suggest it has shaped much of the core palatability and extrusion claim language other filers now have to work around.
A fast drop-off outside the top few filers
Record counts fall from 80 at fifth place to 13 by tenth, indicating that meaningful filing activity is concentrated in a small group rather than spread evenly across the 100 ranked companies.
Joint filings cluster around a few known partnerships
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest pairs linking a major branded pet food filer to an ingredient or IP-holding partner. That pattern suggests some core formulation IP is being developed jointly with ingredient specialists rather than solely in-house.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Societe des Produits Nestle SA (Switzerland) | 1 | — |
| Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Mars, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Specialites Pet Food | 0 | — |
| Uni-Charm Corporation | 0 | — |
| Nestec SA | 0 | — |
| Amos Corporation | 0 | — |
| DSM IP Assets B.V. | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The trend and classification data point to a mature, top-heavy field with a few specific openings.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leading assignee's portfolio
With one filer holding 287 records against a much smaller fifth-place count, any new palatability or extrusion claim should be checked against that company's specific claim language before drafting.
Run a claim comparison in Eureka →Look at the under-claimed adjacent classes
A21C, C07K and A23P carry far lower filing density than core A23K claims, which may leave room for narrower, well-drafted claims in dough handling, peptide ingredients or shaping processes.
Explore white space in Eureka →Watch for a filing rebound as publication catches up
The apparent collapse to 4 filings in the latest year is partly a publication-lag effect; re-check the trend in 12-18 months before concluding the category has gone quiet.
Track filing trends in Eureka →Common questions about pet food patent activity
One assignee leads the ranked field with 287 records, well ahead of the fifth-place company at 80 and the tenth-place company at 13. That gap indicates a single dominant filer rather than a field split evenly among several large players. Co-assignee data also shows this leader appearing in joint-filing pairs with ingredient and IP-holding partners, which likely contributes to its record count. Anyone evaluating freedom to operate in core palatability or extrusion claims should start by checking that company's specific claim language.
Filings in this dataset peaked at 107 in 2017 and fell to a 2022 midpoint of 25, continuing down to just 4 in the most recent year. Part of that final drop is a publication-lag artefact, since patent applications typically publish around 18 months after filing, so the very latest year is always understated. But the multi-year decline from 2017 through 2022 is too long a run to explain by lag alone, and points to a genuine slowdown in new formulation filings in this specific claim scope.
Animal feed formulation, classified under IPC group A23K, carries by far the highest class density in this dataset at 1,047 hits, compared with 166 for A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) and 131 for A61K (medicinal preparations). Smaller clusters appear in A23J and A23P, both at 42, covering protein/peptide ingredients and food shaping respectively. Because a record can carry multiple IPC classes, these figures describe filing density per subject area rather than a share of all 616 records.
The most-cited record in this corpus is a palatability-enhancement composition patent with 56 citations, followed by a manufacturing-method patent at 36 and an older base pet food patent at 34. High citation counts inside a searched corpus tend to favour older filings that have simply had more years to accumulate citations, so treat these figures as a measure of historical influence on later filings rather than a ranking of current commercial importance. Reviewing the actual claim scope of each, not just the citation count, is necessary before assuming any of them blocks a specific new formulation.
The classification data shows comparatively light filing density in A21C (dough handling machinery, 14 hits) and C07K (peptides and proteins, 13 hits) relative to core A23K feed formulation at 1,047. A23P (food shaping and forming) and A23J (protein and food peptide isolation), both at 42, are similarly less contested than the core feed classes. These lighter-filed adjacent areas are worth a closer freedom-to-operate look for applicants working on extrusion equipment, peptide-based functional ingredients, or novel shaping processes rather than core palatability formulations.
Research Pet Food and Companion Animal Nutrition in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pet food and companion animal nutrition 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.