Plant-Based Protein Processing Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Filing peaked in 2020 at 175 families and has trended down since, with 2022 sitting at 152 — this is a maturing filing wave, not an emerging one.
- A23J dominates the technology mix appearing in 792 of 825 records, while additive manufacturing (B33Y, 25 records) and microbial routes (C12N, 33 records) remain thin.
- Recent-year momentum has gone flat across the largest assignees several show 0 filings and -100% YoY in the latest year, suggesting consolidation of claim positions rather than fresh land-grabs.
What this dataset covers
This landscape tracks 825 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine plant-based protein or meat-analogue subject matter with processing terms such as extrusion, fibrous structure, off-flavor masking and water binding, filtered to the IPC classes covering protein and food-peptide chemistry (A23J), food shaping (A23P) and food/beverage composition (A23L). It is a processing-method view rather than an ingredient-formulation view: the search string requires both a plant-protein term and a texturization or functional term in the same family.
Filing offices skew toward Europe and PCT filings ahead of the United States, with EPO taking 157 records, WIPO 141 and the US 140 — a pattern consistent with European food-technology incumbents seeding broad international coverage before national phase entry.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 825-family dataset: the year-by-year filing curve, and how records distribute across the International Patent Classification subclasses that define processing technique versus adjacent fields like animal feed and edible oils.
A filing wave that crested in 2020
Annual filings rose from 37 in 2017 to a peak of 175 in 2020, held near that level through 2022 (152), and have since declined. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years understate true activity, but the shape of the curve — a sharp rise followed by a plateau and pullback — points to a filing wave that has already crested rather than one still building.
Processing claims concentrate in A23J and A23L
A23J (proteins and food peptides) appears in 792 of 825 records and A23L (foods and non-alcoholic beverages) in 498, confirming this is fundamentally a protein-chemistry and food-composition dataset. Food-shaping claims under A23P (183) and animal-feed applications under A23K (109) are secondary but non-trivial pools. Additive manufacturing (B33Y, 25) and microbial/genetic routes (C12N, 33) are the smallest categories, marking them as the least-claimed processing paths in the set.
Shares are the percentage of the 825 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Plant-Based Protein Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about plant-based protein processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe documents shaping this space
US20230033543A1 — Plant based meat analogue by wet extrusion of pea and soy isolates with gluten
The application claims a method of making a cold-cut meat analogue by mixing two or more plant protein isolates with wheat gluten in a defined dry-weight ratio window, requiring at least one isolate derived from pea and/or soy, forming a dough with water, wet-extruding, cooling and optionally cutting.Filed by Societe des Produits Nestle S.A.; published 2023-02-02.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4118164A | High-output apparatus for producing dense, uniformly layered meat analogue product | 145 |
| 2 | WO2020152689A1 | Meat analogues and methods of producing the same | 103 |
| 3 | US6635301B1 | Method and apparatus for the manufacture of meat | 98 |
| 4 | WO2000069276A1 | Method and apparatus for the manufacture of meat | 92 |
| 5 | WO2004016097A1 | Shelf stable meat analogues comprising glycerol and glucose | 71 |
| 6 | US4099455A | Double-extrusion apparatus for producing dense, uniformly layered vegetable protein meat analogue | 57 |
| 7 | WO2020208104A1 | Meat analogues and meat analogue extrusion devices and methods | 48 |
| 8 | US4185123A | High-output method for producing dense, uniformly layered meat analogue product | 47 |
| 9 | WO2020089445A1 | A process for making a meat analogue product | 44 |
| 10 | EP1493337A2 | Vegetable protein meat analogue | 40 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and favour older filings; a low count on a recent family does not mean it is unimportant.
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 filing strategy
Reading the citation leaders alongside the filing curve and IPC mix points to where prior art is dense and where it is thin.
Core extrusion apparatus claims are decades old
The single most-cited record in this set is a high-output layered meat-analogue extrusion apparatus, followed by two more apparatus/method patents on manufacture of meat analogues. Foundational extrusion equipment claims have been cited for years, meaning new apparatus filings in this exact space face a long citation trail to design around.
The filing wave has plateaued, not stopped
Annual filings rose fivefold from 2017 to the 2020 peak, then held roughly flat through 2022 before declining in the (still-incomplete) most recent years. This is consistent with early entrants having staked core claims and later filers now working narrower, defensive angles.
Protein chemistry crowds out adjacent processing routes
With A23J present in 96% of records, the field is defined by isolate and functional-protein chemistry rather than by shaping or additive-manufacturing technique. B33Y (3D printing, 25 records) and C12N (microbial/fermentation routes, 33 records) remain comparatively open.
Collaboration is concentrated among a handful of pairs
Co-filing activity in this dataset is limited to ten pairs, with the strongest links joining a major food manufacturer to university research partners and a consumer-goods group to its own IP holding entity. This suggests most assignees still file solo rather than through joint ventures.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to plant-based protein processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. | University of Montpellier | 18 |
| Unilever IP Holdings B.V. | CONOPCO INC | 18 |
| Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. | French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE) | 9 |
| Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. | National Institute for Agricultural Research | 7 |
| Tereos Starch & Sweeteners Belgium | Syral Belgium | 5 |
| Sunfed Foods Limited | SOLAR FOODS OYJ | 4 |
| CONOPCO INC | Unilever Nederland B.V. | 3 |
| CONOPCO INC | Unilever PLC | 3 |
The strongest co-assignee pairs link a major food manufacturer with a university research partner, and a consumer-goods group with its own IP holding subsidiary — both patterns typical of applied food-science research rather than open-market licensing.
Who is filing, and who has gone quiet
Recent-year momentum diverges sharply from historical filing volume: several of the largest historical filers show zero filings in the latest year, while at least one newer entrant is still active at a small scale.
One newer entrant holds flat momentum
A meat-analogue specialist entrant shows one filing in the latest year with 0% year-on-year change, effectively maintaining a steady, if small, filing pace while larger incumbents pull back.
Several major filers show zero recent activity
Multiple assignees with substantial historical filing volume — including large confectionery, oils and starch/sweetener groups — register zero filings in the latest year and a -100% year-on-year change, consistent with the broader plateau in the overall filing trend.
European filings lead, with PCT close behind
Europe (157 records) and the WIPO PCT route (141) both outpace direct US filings (140), while Canada (62), Australia (58) and Israel (38) form a smaller secondary tier — a filing footprint that favours broad international coverage over US-first strategy.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Redefine Meat Ltd. | 1 | 0% |
| Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. | 0 | — |
| Mars, Incorporated | 0 | -100% |
| Unilever IP Holdings B.V. | 0 | -100% |
| AAK AB | 0 | -100% |
| Tereos Starch & Sweeteners Belgium | 0 | — |
| CONOPCO INC | 0 | -100% |
| Syral Belgium | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing data points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or identifying open claim space.
Screen the thin IPC branches before drafting
B33Y and C12N together cover under 60 of the 825 records — run a targeted prior-art search on 3D-printed and fermentation-based texturization before assuming those routes are open.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch the quiet incumbents
Assignees showing 0% recent filings still hold prior claims that can block a new apparatus or composition filing; a freedom-to-operate check against their historical portfolios is worth doing before committing to core extrusion claims.
Run an FTO check in EurekaTrack the academic-industry co-filing pairs
The strongest co-assignee links in this dataset pair food manufacturers with university research groups — a signal of where licensing-in opportunities may sit.
Map assignee networks in EurekaCommon questions on plant-based protein processing patents
The most-cited record in this dataset, US4118164A, covers a high-output apparatus for producing dense, layered meat-analogue product and has accumulated 145 citations, making it a foundational reference for extrusion apparatus claims. Several other highly-cited records, including WO2020152689A1 and US6635301B1, cover related methods and apparatus for meat-analogue manufacture. Because these are older, heavily-cited filings, anyone designing new extrusion equipment for meat analogues should check freedom-to-operate against this cluster before finalizing an apparatus design.
Filing volume rose from 37 families in 2017 to a peak of 175 in 2020, then plateaued near that level through 2022 at 152 before declining in the most recent years. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the drop in the last one to two years is partly an artifact of incomplete data rather than a real collapse in activity. Overall, the pattern looks like a filing wave that has crested and settled into a plateau rather than one still accelerating.
Based on IPC subclass distribution, additive manufacturing techniques (B33Y, 25 of 825 records) and microbial or fermentation-based routes (C12N, 33 records) have the thinnest patent coverage in this dataset, compared to 792 records touching core protein chemistry under A23J. That gap does not guarantee the techniques are unpatented elsewhere, but it does suggest less claim density in this specific corpus. Teams working on 3D-printed protein structures or fermentation-assisted texturization should run a dedicated prior-art search rather than assuming the space is crowded.
This Nestle-assigned application, published 2023-02-02, claims a method for making a cold-cut meat analogue by combining two or more plant protein isolates with wheat gluten in a specified dry-weight ratio range, where at least one isolate must derive from pea or soy, then forming a dough with water and shaping it by wet extrusion before cooling and optional cutting. The claim scope is tied closely to that isolate-to-gluten ratio window and the wet-extrusion process step, rather than to plant protein use in general. Anyone working with pea-soy-gluten blends processed by wet extrusion should review this filing's specific ratio ranges to assess overlap.
Recent-year momentum data shows several historically large filers, including major confectionery, oils, and starch and sweetener companies, recording zero filings in the latest year and a -100% year-on-year change, indicating a pullback from peak activity. At least one meat-analogue-focused entrant continues filing at a steady, small pace with 0% year-on-year change. This divergence suggests the largest incumbents may have already secured their core claim positions, while newer or smaller entrants continue incremental filing.
Research Plant-Based Protein Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole plant-based protein 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.