Plant Cell Culture Harvest Timing Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- One assignee dominates the ranked field. the leader holds 23 records against a fifth-place count of 2 and a tenth-place count of 1, leaving an unusually long single-filer tail.
- Filing has gone quiet, not busy. the tracked growth figure runs from 2 filings in 2021 to 0 in 2024, a -100% swing over that span, after a 2018 peak of 7.
- Claims cluster in genetics, not equipment. C12N and A01H cover 95.7% and 76.6% of the 47 records in scope, while bioreactor-class C12M sits at just 25.5%.
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
Plant cell culture harvest timing sits at the intersection of bioprocess control and plant genetics: patents in this set claim methods and materials tied to viability decline, product titer, impurity release and related quality attributes that determine when a culture run should be stopped. The search spans C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering), A01H (new plants and plant breeding) and C12M (bioreactors and enzyme apparatus), which is a narrower and more mixed set than a pure fermentation-engineering search would return.
The scope covers 47 published records filed or published between 2015 and the 2026-07-31 cut-off. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years of the trend understate actual filing activity and should not be read as a slowdown on their own.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 47-record dataset: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend: a 2018 peak, then contraction
Filings peaked at 7 in 2018. The tracked growth window shows 2 filings in 2021 falling to 0 in 2024, a -100% change over that three-year span — the most recent complete-year comparison available in this dataset. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in due to publication lag and should not be read against this trend.
Technology mix: genetics-heavy, equipment-light
C12N and A01H between them touch the large majority of records (95.7% and 76.6% of the 47 in scope respectively), meaning most claims are anchored in cultivar or genetic-engineering language rather than apparatus. C12M, the bioreactor and enzyme-apparatus class, appears in only 25.5% of records — a comparatively thin claim base for the hardware side of harvest-timing control. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add to more than 100% and should not be summed.
Shares are the percentage of the 47 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Plant Cell Culture Harvest Timing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about plant cell culture harvest timing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this set
US7964779B2 — Celery cultivar ADS-18
A celery cultivar, designated ADS-18, is disclosed. The invention relates to the seeds of celery cultivar ADS-18, to the plants of celery cultivar ADS-18 and to methods for producing a celery plant by crossing the cultivar ADS-18 with itself or another celery cultivar. The invention further relates to methods for producing a celery plant containing in its genetic material one or more transgenes, and to the transgenic celery plants and plant parts produced by those methods.Filed by A. Duda & Sons, Inc., published 2011-06-21 — one of the earlier records anchoring this assignee's position in the ranking.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110258744A1 | Capsicum variety exhibiting a hyper-accumulation of zeaxanthin and products derived therefrom | 20 |
| 2 | US8598425B2 | Celery cultivar ADS-23 | 19 |
| 3 | US20130340106A1 | Ansar lettuce variety | 16 |
| 4 | US20110078819A1 | Method and Appartus for Extraction of Plant Embryos | 16 |
| 5 | US8962927B2 | Ansar lettuce variety | 15 |
| 6 | US20070214513A1 | Celery cultivar ADS-12 | 12 |
| 7 | US8598424B2 | Celery cultivar ADS-22 | 11 |
| 8 | WO2009142752A1 | Method and apparatus for extraction of plant embryos | 11 |
| 9 | US7429694B2 | Celery cultivar ADS-12 | 11 |
| 10 | US8524993B2 | Celery cultivar ADS-20 | 10 |
Citation counts favour older filings in any searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence within this dataset, 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 filing pattern tells a decision-maker
Three read-throughs of the dataset that matter more than the raw counts.
One filer, then a steep drop
The ranked leader holds 23 records; the count falls to 2 by fifth place and to 1 by tenth. That gap suggests a single assignee built an early cultivar and breeding-method position that the rest of the field has not matched in volume.
Activity has cooled from its high point
Filings peaked at 7 in 2018 and the tracked 2021-to-2024 comparison shows a full -100% drop to zero. Because 2025-2026 data is still arriving, this should be read as a completed cycle rather than a live decline.
Claim space favours cultivar language
C12N appears in 95.7% of the 47 records and A01H in 76.6%, while bioreactor-class C12M sits at 25.5%. Apparatus and process-control claims around the harvest decision itself look comparatively open next to the dense cultivar and genetic-engineering claim base.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to plant cell culture harvest timing, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Syngenta Participations AG | SEVERSON JOSH | 1 |
| Syngenta Participations AG | BULLOCK WILLIAM PAUL | 1 |
| SEVERSON JOSH | BULLOCK WILLIAM PAUL | 1 |
Only 3 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest of them link a single corporate assignee to two individual named inventors rather than to another company — there is little sign of joint-filing partnerships in this field yet.
The assignee field and where it thins out
Eleven companies make up the entire ranking this dataset returns. Filing is dominated by one agricultural cultivar specialist, with named individual inventors and smaller crop-science firms filling out a long single-record tail.
A cultivar-breeding incumbent sets the pace
The leading assignee's count of 23 dwarfs the rest of the ranking, built on cultivar filings such as the celery and lettuce varieties that also dominate the most-cited list. Its recent-year momentum has flattened to 0 in the latest tracked year, consistent with the field-wide contraction after 2018.
Established agri-biotech names hold small, defensible positions
Firms with broader crop-science and synthetic-biology portfolios appear mid-ranking with only a handful of records each, suggesting harvest-timing claims are a minor line item inside larger genetic-engineering portfolios rather than a core filing focus.
Individual inventors and single-product filers
Several entrants, including named individual inventors, hold exactly one record apiece. This pattern — a dominant leader plus many single filers — points to a field where most participants patented a specific cultivar or method once and did not return.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| DUDA A & SONS INC | 0 | — |
| Amgen Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Syngenta Participations AG | 0 | — |
| PIERCE LAWRENCE K | 0 | — |
| Zymergen Inc. | 0 | — |
| Kalamazoo Holdings, Inc. | 0 | — |
| NANNES JOHANNES SIMON PETRUS | 0 | — |
| SEVERSON JOSH | 0 | — |
Where to take this landscape
The dataset points to specific follow-up work rather than a single conclusion.
Map the harvest-window control claims directly
C12M's 25.5% share is thin relative to the genetics classes. A focused search on bioreactor-side monitoring and control claims would show whether that gap is real white space or simply under-indexed in this IPC combination.
Explore this branch in EurekaWatch the leader's next filings
With the ranked leader's momentum flat in the latest tracked year and the broader field down -100% from 2021 to 2024, the next filing wave, whenever publication catches up, will show whether the contraction was cyclical or structural.
Track assignee activity in EurekaCheck design-around options against the most-cited filings
The most-cited records concentrate on named cultivars rather than generic process claims, which may leave more room for method-level filing than the citation counts alone suggest.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked field with 23 records, well ahead of the rest of the eleven companies tracked in this dataset. Fifth place holds only 2 records and tenth place holds 1, so the field is best described as one dominant filer plus a long tail of single-record entrants rather than several competing leaders. That leader's portfolio is built substantially on named cultivar filings, such as celery and lettuce varieties, rather than on bioreactor process claims.
Filings peaked at 7 in 2018 and the most recent complete-year comparison, 2021 to 2024, shows a full -100% drop to zero. That said, publication lags actual filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures in any such dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as confirming a live decline. The honest read is that the field cooled sharply after its 2018 peak, with the post-2024 picture not yet resolved.
The large majority of records sit in C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering, 95.7% of the 47 records) and A01H (new plants and plant breeding, 76.6%), meaning most claims describe cultivars, breeding methods or genetic modifications rather than bioreactor hardware. C12M, the bioreactor and enzyme-apparatus class, covers only 25.5% of records. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these percentages add to more than 100% and should not be treated as parts of a whole.
US7964779B2 claims the celery cultivar ADS-18, methods for producing celery plants by crossing that cultivar, and transgenic derivatives containing its genetic material. It blocks direct reproduction, crossing and transgenic use of that specific cultivar and its named derivatives, not harvest-timing methods or bioreactor process steps in general. It is a representative example of how cultivar-level claims dominate this dataset rather than process-control claims.
The clearest gap by IPC share is on the equipment and control side: C12M, covering bioreactors and enzyme apparatus, appears in only 25.5% of the 47 records, well below the genetics classes. Sub-areas such as real-time viability biomarker sensing, automated harvest-window triggers, and impurity-release detection in bioreactor effluent look under-claimed relative to the dense cultivar and genetic-engineering claim base. Co-assignee filing is also thin, with only 3 pairs identified, suggesting few joint-filing partnerships have formed around these process-control angles yet.
Research Plant Cell Culture Harvest Timing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole plant cell culture harvest timing 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.