Pet Food Palatability Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- 34 families from the leading assignee versus 11 at fifth place and 4 at tenth — a steep drop-off rather than an even spread across the 25 ranked companies.
- Filing has gone quiet since the 2019 peak of 9 with the tracked 2021→2024 span down 100%, though 2025–2026 counts are still filling in as publications lag filing.
- 83.7% of the 98 records sit in A23K (animal feed) while adjacent classes like A23P food-shaping and B01D separation each cover only 2% — a sign of where claims are thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (0) — 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.
What this landscape covers
This review tracks 98 published patent records filed between 2015 and 2026 that describe palatability-enhancement methods for pet food: palatant and fat coatings applied to kibble surfaces, digest application, aroma volatile control, oxidation stabilisation and related preference-testing claims. The scope is defined by a search across titles, abstracts and claims for these specific technical terms, not a broad pet-food category search, so the record count is deliberately narrow and concentrated on coating and flavour-delivery mechanics rather than nutrition or formulation generally.
Coverage runs to a 2026-07-31 data cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend line understate actual filing activity and should be read as provisional rather than a sign of decline.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 98-record dataset: how filing activity moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records fall into.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filing rose from 3 records in 2017 to a peak of 9 in 2019, then declined; the tracked span from 2021 (2 records) to 2024 (0 records) shows a 100% drop, the most recent complete-year comparison available. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete due to publication lag and should not be read as a continued fall.
IPC subclass distribution
A23K (animal feed) covers 83.7% of the 98 records, far ahead of A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) at 20.4% and C11B (fatty oils and waxes production) at 12.2%. Smaller classes — B62D, A01K, A23D, A23P and B01D — each sit at 2-4.1%, marking narrower or more experimental filing activity. Records can carry multiple IPC codes, so these shares sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 98 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Pet Food Palatability Enhancement with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pet food palatability enhancement and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records and a representative filing
Pet Food Palatability with Antimicrobial Properties Based On Organic Acids (US20140154356A1)
Pet food palatability enhancers based on organic acids and showing antimicrobial efficacy are described.Filed under Bank of America, N.A., as collateral agent, dated 2014-06-05 — an example of how palatability IP in this field has moved through corporate financing and collateral structures rather than staying solely with the operating pet-food business.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100303968A1 | Pet Food in the Form of a Coated Kibble | 69 |
| 2 | US20100303966A1 | Pet Food in the Form of a Coated Kibble | 55 |
| 3 | US20080299286A1 | Palatability enhancing compositions and foods for pets, and methods regarding the same | 40 |
| 4 | US20050106285A1 | Tripolyphosphate pet food palatability enhancers | 29 |
| 5 | US20110027416A1 | Dusted Animal Food | 28 |
| 6 | US20100303951A1 | Delivering an Active Ingredient in Pet Food | 27 |
| 7 | WO2011091111A1 | Process for making a pet food in the form of a coated kibble | 26 |
| 8 | US20120021094A1 | Process for Making a Pet Food in the Form of a Coated Kibble | 23 |
| 9 | US20100303978A1 | Vitamin retention of pet food | 23 |
| 10 | US20100303967A1 | Pet Food Having Improved Animal Preference | 22 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and favour older filings; they are not a measure 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 mean for strategy
Three findings that shape where to file, where to license, and where to look for open ground.
A steep drop after the leader
The leading assignee holds 34 families against 11 at fifth place and 4 at tenth, across a ranking of 25 companies. That gap suggests the core coated-kibble and palatant-coating mechanics are held tightly by one or two incumbents, while the rest of the ranked field files in smaller, more targeted batches.
Filing has slowed from its 2019 peak
Activity peaked at 9 records in 2019 and the tracked 2021-to-2024 window shows a full 100% decline, the most recent span that can be read as complete. This does not necessarily mean the field is closing — see the note on publication lag — but it does mean fewer new filings are entering the record for now.
Claims cluster tightly in animal feed
A23K accounts for 83.7% of the 98 records, with A23L and C11B as the only other classes above 10%. The remaining classes, each at 2-4.1%, point to where palatability claims spill into shaping, separation or edible-oil processing but haven't yet been heavily claimed.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to pet food palatability enhancement, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| SUNVOLD GREGORY DEAN | CORRIGAN PATRICK JOSEPH | 16 |
| Evonik Operations GmbH | DSM IP Assets B.V. | 11 |
| Mars, Incorporated | SUNVOLD GREGORY DEAN | 6 |
| Mars, Incorporated | CORRIGAN PATRICK JOSEPH | 6 |
| SUNVOLD GREGORY DEAN | HOUSTON MICHELLE MARIE | 6 |
| CORRIGAN PATRICK JOSEPH | HOUSTON MICHELLE MARIE | 6 |
| Mars, Incorporated | The Procter & Gamble Company | 3 |
| Mars, Incorporated | HOUSTON MICHELLE MARIE | 2 |
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset. The strongest pairing links two individual inventors at 16 shared records, and two corporate pairings follow at 11 and 6 — evidence that palatability IP here is built as much through named-inventor partnerships as through corporate joint filing.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
The ranked field spans 25 companies and named inventors, with filing volume dropping off quickly after the top few positions.
Holds the core coating mechanics
The top-ranked assignee's family count is roughly triple that of the fifth-place company, consistent with early, broad claims on coated-kibble and fat-coating methods that later entrants have had to file around.
A cluster of active but smaller filers
From fifth place down, family counts fall into single digits quickly, suggesting a group of ingredient and additive suppliers filing narrower, application-specific claims rather than platform patents.
Individual inventors and smaller entrants
By tenth place, family counts drop to 4, and named individual inventors appear alongside corporate assignees — a sign that some of this IP originated outside the largest pet-food manufacturers before being licensed or acquired.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Mars, Incorporated | 0 | — |
| SUNVOLD GREGORY DEAN | 0 | — |
| CORRIGAN PATRICK JOSEPH | 0 | — |
| Kemin Industries, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Mars, Incorporated | 0 | — |
| Evonik Operations GmbH | 0 | — |
| DSM IP Assets B.V. | 0 | — |
| HOUSTON MICHELLE MARIE | 0 | — |
Where to take this
Two directions to follow up on, depending on whether the priority is freedom-to-operate or spotting open claim space.
Check freedom-to-operate against the coated-kibble core
The most-cited records in this dataset describe coated-kibble and palatability-enhancing compositions with citation counts well above the rest of the field, meaning any new coating or digest-application method should be checked against them first.
Explore the citation network in EurekaScope a claim in an under-claimed branch
Classes like A23P (food shaping) and B01D (separation processes) sit at only 2% of records each, well below the core A23K space, and may offer room for a narrower but defensible claim.
Run a white-space search in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
Across the 25 companies in this ranking, one assignee leads clearly with 34 patent families, close to triple the count at fifth place (11 families). This gap indicates that the foundational coated-kibble and palatant-coating techniques were claimed early by a small number of incumbents, while later entrants have filed narrower, more specific improvements. Anyone entering this space should expect the leader's portfolio to cover the broadest coating and application methods, with room remaining in more specialised sub-areas.
Filing peaked at 9 records in 2019 and the tracked 2021-to-2024 window shows a 100% decline, the most recent period that can be treated as a complete comparison. However, records from 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so it would be premature to call the field closed based on the newest years alone. A fuller picture of 2025-2026 activity will only be visible once those publications catch up.
This filing describes pet food palatability enhancers based on organic acids that also provide antimicrobial efficacy, filed under a collateral-agent assignee structure and dated 2014-06-05. It sits within the organic-acid palatability approach rather than the coated-kibble mechanical-application approach that dominates the most-cited records in this dataset. Anyone formulating an organic-acid-based enhancer with claimed antimicrobial properties should review this filing's specific claim language before finalising a formulation.
The dataset shows heavy concentration in A23K (animal feed, 83.7% of the 98 records), with much smaller shares in A23P food-shaping, B01D separation processes, A01K animal husbandry interfaces and A23D edible oils and fats, each at 2-4.1%. These smaller classes suggest that palatability methods tied to shaping, filtration-based oxidation control, or oil-based carrier systems have not been heavily claimed relative to core coating methods. That gap is where a narrower, well-drafted claim is more likely to clear existing prior art.
The ranking includes 25 companies, and family counts fall sharply after the top few positions — from 34 at the top, to 11 at fifth place, to 4 at tenth place. This step-down pattern points to a small group of well-established filers holding the broadest claims, followed by a longer tail of smaller or single-filing entrants. It is not possible to state an exact concentration percentage from this evidence, since the ranking and the total record count are measured in different units.
Research Pet Food Palatability Enhancement in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pet food palatability enhancement 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.