PEF Food Processing Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filings have plateaued, not grown. the field peaked in 2022 at 159 records and 2026 sits well below that, so recent activity reads as consolidation rather than a growing wave.
- Food use is a minority claim. only 16.8% of the 1,854 records in scope sit in A23L (foods & beverages) against 37.5% in A61B and 32.6% in A61N, meaning most PEF patent activity is medical, not culinary.
- The top of the ranking is concentrated. the top 5 assignees hold 32.1% of all 1,854 records and the top 10 hold 40.7%, leaving a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants below tenth place at 30 records.
What the patent record shows about PEF food processing
Pulsed electric field (PEF) technology applies short high-voltage pulses to disrupt cell membranes without heat, and the patent record around it spans two very different application domains that share the same underlying physics. One domain is medical electroporation and neuromodulation — renal denervation, tissue ablation, drug and gene delivery — and the other is food and liquid processing, covering microbial inactivation, mild pasteurization and extraction yield enhancement. The search scope for this page captures both, because the same core claim language on pulse generation, electrode design and field strength recurs across them.
That overlap matters for anyone filing in food-grade PEF: dense prior art in electrode fouling, corrosion resistance and pulse-chamber design was built largely by medical device applicants, and a food-processing claim that reuses that language risks running into it. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the 2026 count in the trend below understates actual filing activity for that year.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,854 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those records classify across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the composition shares add up to more than 100%.
Filings rose to a 2022 peak, then eased back
Annual filings moved from 79 in 2017 to a peak of 159 in 2022, then declined toward 24 in 2026 — a partial year given the data cut-off. Read the recent downturn cautiously: some of it is real cooling, some of it is publication lag still working through the pipeline.
Medical electrotherapy classes dominate the mix
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) and A61N (electrotherapy & radiation therapy) together cover the largest shares of records at 37.5% and 32.6% respectively, well ahead of A23L (foods & non-alcoholic beverages) at 16.8%. Water treatment (C02F, 8.1%) and microorganism/genetic engineering (C12N, 6.9%) round out the smaller but active branches.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,854 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Pulsed Electric Field Food Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pulsed electric field food processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative food-processing filing
Pulsed electric field treatment process and dairy product comprising bioactive molecules obtainable by the process
The filing addresses inactivation of bioactive components in milk during pasteurization. It discloses a PEF treatment method for whole milk, skimmed milk, semi-skimmed milk or whey, where selecting process parameters — chamber design, specific energy, field strength, pulse type and start temperature — eliminates microorganisms while conserving the activity of bioactive components in the composition.Filed by Nestec S.A. (Nestlé), published 2014-06-05 — US20140154371A1
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050288730A1 | Methods and apparatus for renal neuromodulation | 976 |
| 2 | US7653438B2 | Methods and apparatus for renal neuromodulation | 897 |
| 3 | US20070265687A1 | Apparatuses for renal neuromodulation | 642 |
| 4 | US7620451B2 | Methods and apparatus for pulsed electric field neuromodulation via an intra-to-extravascular approach | 639 |
| 5 | US20100222851A1 | Methods for monitoring renal neuromodulation | 603 |
| 6 | US20060271111A1 | Methods and apparatus for treating contrast nephropathy | 568 |
| 7 | US20060041277A1 | Methods and apparatus for renal neuromodulation | 567 |
| 8 | WO2006041881A2 | Methods and apparatus for renal neuromodulation | 558 |
| 9 | US8131371B2 | Methods and apparatus for monopolar renal neuromodulation | 552 |
| 10 | US7756583B2 | Methods and apparatus for intravascularly-induced neuromodulation | 529 |
Citation counts favour older filings inside any searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on later work, not as 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 a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the medical and food-processing branches are read side by side: where citation weight sits, where the field is still moving, and where the claim space is thin enough to enter.
Influence sits with renal neuromodulation, not food processing
The most-cited records in scope, led by a filing on renal neuromodulation methods and apparatus, are medical devices. That reflects how long those families have been accumulating citations, not that food-processing PEF claims are less inventive — the food branch is simply younger and smaller.
Growth has flattened since the 2022 peak
Annual filings climbed from 79 in 2017 to 159 in 2022, then eased down toward 24 in the most recent partial year. Recent-year momentum among individual assignees is mostly flat or negative, which is consistent with a field consolidating around established players rather than expanding.
Filing activity concentrates in three receiving offices
The United States leads with 509 filings, followed by China at 386 and the European Patent Office at 295. WIPO/PCT filings (189) and the smaller Australian and Canadian offices (71 and 70) suggest applicants are still choosing national or regional routes over broad PCT coverage for this technology.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to pulsed electric field food processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it is still open
The ranked leaders span both medical-device and food-technology applicants, with a small number of firms holding a disproportionate share of records and a long tail of single-digit filers below them.
One applicant holds the largest single block
The leading assignee's 261 records sit well ahead of fifth place (69) and tenth place (30), a gap that signals a genuinely dominant filer rather than a crowded top tier. Most of that volume traces to medical electroporation and neuromodulation claims rather than food processing.
Concentration eases quickly after the top few
The top 5 assignees combined hold 32.1% of all records in scope; extending to the top 10 adds only another 8.6 percentage points to reach 40.7%. Below tenth place, filing counts drop toward single digits, which is where most new entrants sit today.
Even active filers are pulling back
Assignees still filing in the latest year show year-over-year declines rather than growth — one at 3 filings (-40% YoY), another at 2 filings (-83% YoY). Several previously prominent filers show zero filings in the latest year, reinforcing the flat-to-declining trend seen field-wide.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Galvanize Therapeutics Inc | 3 | -40% |
| Endogenex Inc | 2 | -83% |
| Medtronic Inc | 1 | — |
| Medtronic Ardian Luxembourg SARL | 0 | — |
| ARDIAN INC | 0 | — |
| Genetronics Inc | 0 | — |
| Iowa Approach Inc | 0 | — |
| Pulse Biosciences Inc | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific questions worth running deeper on, depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace filing, or tracking a competitor.
Map claim overlap between medical and food-grade PEF
Electrode design and pulse-generation claims recur across both domains. Before filing a food-processing application, check whether the core mechanism claim already sits inside a medical electroporation family.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaTrack the leading assignee's recent filings
With 261 records and continued activity, the top-ranked assignee's most recent filings are the clearest signal of where the dominant player is still investing versus pulling back.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaDraft around the under-claimed branches
Extraction yield enhancement and continuous-flow electrode fouling mitigation show thinner filing density than the core electrotherapy classes — a reasonable starting point for a first claim.
Explore whitespace with EurekaCommon questions about PEF food processing patents
Across the full 1,854-record dataset, the leading assignee holds 261 records, well ahead of fifth place at 69 and tenth place at 30. Most of that volume comes from medical electroporation and neuromodulation applicants rather than food-technology companies, because the search scope captures both domains under shared core PEF claim language. A food-processing-specific search narrowed to A23L classifications would surface a different, smaller leaderboard.
No — filings rose from 79 in 2017 to a peak of 159 in 2022, then declined toward 24 in 2026, though that final year is partial due to publication lag. Recent-year momentum by individual assignee is flat or negative across the board, with several previously active filers showing zero filings in the latest year. The pattern reads as a field consolidating around established players rather than one still expanding.
Only 16.8% of the 1,854 records in scope classify under A23L, the IPC subclass for foods and non-alcoholic beverages. The larger shares sit in A61B (37.5%) and A61N (32.6%), both medical electrotherapy and surgery classifications. This means most pulsed electric field patent activity historically targets medical uses like renal denervation and tissue ablation, with food and beverage processing as a smaller, more recent branch.
Filing density is comparatively thin in continuous-flow electrode fouling mitigation, corrosion-resistant food-contact electrode materials, and extraction yield enhancement for plant-based feedstocks, relative to the dense claim coverage in core electrotherapy and neuromodulation classes. These branches sit adjacent to well-covered medical PEF mechanisms but have not attracted the same filing volume. A first claim there should specify the food-contact material or continuous-flow geometry precisely enough to sit clear of the medical-device prior art.
It can, if the food-processing claim relies on the same core pulse-generation or electrode mechanism without narrowing to a food-specific parameter or apparatus feature. The dataset shows heavy overlap between A61B/A61N medical classifications and the smaller A23L food branch, reflecting shared underlying physics. A freedom-to-operate check should specifically compare proposed food-processing claim language against the electrode design and energy-delivery claims held by the leading medical-device assignees before filing.
Research Pulsed Electric Field Food Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pulsed electric field food 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.