Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/starch-byproduct-valorization-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Starch & Sugar ProcessingStarch Byproduct Valorization Patents: Filing Trends and Where the Claim Space Sits
- 36.1% of all 2,045 records sit with just five assignees, so the field reads as concentrated at the top rather than evenly spread.
- Filings fell 77% from 2021 to 2024 (61 down to 14), the last span the data can treat as complete before publication lag understates recent years.
- C12N microorganism claims cover 48.7% of records while polysaccharide derivatives (C08B, 9.8%) and peptide/protein claims (C07K, 9.2%) stay comparatively thin.
2,045
Published Records
36%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-77%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (61 records) with 2024 (14) — 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. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 2,045 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What this landscape covers
Starch byproduct valorization spans the patenting around turning corn wet-milling and starch processing residues — corn gluten feed, steep liquor, fibre fractions — into higher-value outputs: animal feed, fermentation feedstocks, protein concentrates and industrial polysaccharides. The search set combines byproduct-specific terms with process markers like protein concentration, fibre drying and feed value, which pulls in both the agricultural biotechnology side (genetically modified maize, enzyme production) and the downstream processing side (drying, feed formulation, market outlets for the resulting material).
The 2,045 records in scope run from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, with a strong early peak and a documented pull-back since 2021 that reflects publication lag as much as any real slowdown in filing activity.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015 to date
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Starch Byproduct Valorization covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same 2,045-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
Filing trend, 2017 peak to present
Filings peaked at 115 in 2017. The 2021-to-2024 span, the last period the dataset can treat as complete, shows a drop from 61 to 14 records — a 77% decline. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still filling in given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, so they should not be read as a continuing fall.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) touches 48.7% of the 2,045 records, ahead of A23K animal feed (32.6%) and C12P fermentation and enzymatic synthesis (31.2%). A23L foods (17.7%), A61K medicinal preparations (13.9%) and A01H plant breeding (13.5%) form a second tier. C08B polysaccharide derivatives (9.8%) and C07K peptides and proteins (9.2%) are the thinnest of the tracked classes, which is where downstream material-science claims have the most room.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,045 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Starch Byproduct Valorization covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Starch Byproduct Valorization with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about starch byproduct valorization and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Most-cited records and a representative filing
Representative Filing
US4708877A — Animal feed blocks containing dietary supplements
CONSOLIDATED NUTRITION, L.C.
Cattle feed blocks made by a low-cost process built on corn industry byproduct residues: corn gluten feed or corn steep liquor (or both) acts as a hardening agent. Molasses and hot water go into the mixer first, clay is added to keep ingredients in suspension, then animal fat, vitamins and other ingredients are mixed in and the batch is brought to 140–175°F before magnesium oxide and vegetable matter are added.Filed by Consolidated Nutrition, L.C., dated 1987-11-24 — one of the earliest documented uses of corn steep liquor as a functional hardening agent in feed blocks, well ahead of the 2015-2026 filing window this landscape otherwise tracks.
View full recordHighest-citation records in the corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO1995006128A2 | Fertile, transgenic maize plants and methods for their production | 1,116 |
| 2 | US6399861B1 | Methods and compositions for the production of stably transformed, fertile monocot plants and cells thereof | 810 |
| 3 | US7151204B2 | Maize chloroplast aldolase promoter compositions and methods for use thereof | 663 |
| 4 | US6509180B1 | Process for producing ethanol | 639 |
| 5 | US6232526B1 | Maize A3 promoter and methods for use thereof | 628 |
| 6 | US6433252B1 | Maize L3 oleosin promoter | 570 |
| 7 | US6429357B1 | Rice actin 2 promoter and intron and methods for use thereof | 464 |
| 8 | US6426446B1 | Maize RS324 promoter and methods for use thereof | 463 |
| 9 | US6927048B2 | Process for producing ethanol | 460 |
| 10 | US6437217B1 | Maize RS81 promoter and methods for use thereof | 460 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence within this searched corpus, not as a measure of current relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Starch Byproduct Valorization covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the data says about this field
Three findings that shape how a new entrant should read the existing claim landscape.
Concentration
36.1% of 2,045 records
held by the top five assignees
The top of the field is dense, the rest is a long tail
The leading assignee alone accounts for 173 records, and the top ten combined reach 57.8% of all records in scope. Below that threshold, filing activity thins out quickly across the remaining ranked assignees, which is typical of a field anchored by a few large agricultural biotech and ingredients players.
Ranking covers 100 assignees, counted by patent family.
Trajectory
-77% from 2021 to 2024
61 records down to 14
Activity has cooled from a 2017 peak, but read the tail with care
Filings peaked at 115 in 2017 and the 2021-2024 window shows a clear pull-back. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as evidence the field has kept falling.
2024 is the most recent year treated as complete.
Composition
48.7% vs 9.2%
C12N share vs C07K share
Genetic engineering claims dominate; protein-chemistry claims are thin
Microorganism and genetic-engineering claims (C12N) touch nearly half the record set, while peptide and protein claims (C07K) and polysaccharide-derivative claims (C08B) sit under 10% each. That gap suggests downstream material characterization of the byproduct itself is comparatively under-claimed relative to the upstream biology.
Shares are of all 2,045 records; a record can carry multiple IPC classes.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to starch byproduct valorization, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Starch Byproduct Valorization covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players & Landscape
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The assignee ranking is led by a small group of agricultural biotechnology and ingredients companies, with the remainder of the 100 ranked assignees filing far less densely.
Leader position
173 records
held by the top-ranked assignee
One assignee sets the pace
The leading assignee's 173 records sit well above fifth place (127) and tenth place (60), a gap that signals a genuinely dominant filer rather than a tightly bunched top group.
Counted by patent family across the ranked 100 assignees.
Recent momentum
0 in the latest year
across several previously active filers
Several historically active filers show no latest-year activity
Assignees that built substantial portfolios earlier in the window show zero records in the most recent year tracked. Given the publication lag, this is as likely to reflect filings still working through the pipeline as an actual stop in R&D.
Momentum reflects publication dates, not filing dates.
Collaboration
10 co-assignee pairs
identified in the dataset
Co-filing is limited and concentrated
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, and the strongest pairs are repeat inventor-employer combinations within single large organisations rather than cross-company joint filings, suggesting most of this work is done in-house.
Strongest pairs recur at 9-15 shared records.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| DSM IP Assets B.V. | 0 | — |
| International N&H Denmark ApS | 0 | — |
| Syngenta Participations AG | 0 | — |
| Xyleco, Inc. | 0 | — |
| BASF Plant Science GmbH | 0 | — |
| Novozymes A/S | 0 | — |
| Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. | 0 | — |
| Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Starch Byproduct Valorization covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The landscape narrows down to specific questions once you know where the density sits.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top filers
Concentration at the top of the ranking means clearance work should start with the leading assignees' families, not a flat search across all 100 ranked entities.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaTrack whether the 2021-2024 pull-back continues
Because publication lag leaves 2025-2026 incomplete, revisit the trend once another filing year has had time to publish before drawing conclusions about a slowdown.
Set up a filing-trend alert in EurekaMap the under-claimed material-science branches
C08B and C07K sit well below the microorganism and feed classes; a targeted search there can surface whether that is genuine white space or simply unindexed prior art.
Explore IPC white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Starch Byproduct Valorization covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this landscape
The dataset's assignee ranking is led by a single company with 173 records, well ahead of the fifth-place assignee at 127 and tenth place at 60. The top five assignees combined hold 36.1% of all 2,045 records in scope, and the top ten hold 57.8%. Below the top ten, filing density drops off quickly across the remaining ranked assignees, which include large agricultural biotechnology, enzyme and ingredients companies.
Filings peaked in 2017 at 115 records and have declined since, with the most recent complete window (2021 to 2024) showing a 77% drop from 61 to 14 records. However, publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures in the dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as proof the field is still cooling. The safest read is that activity has genuinely pulled back from its 2017 peak, with the very latest trend still uncertain.
US4708877A, filed by Consolidated Nutrition, L.C. and dated 1987-11-24, covers a process for making cattle feed blocks using corn gluten feed or corn steep liquor as a hardening agent, combined with molasses, clay, animal fat and vitamins mixed and heated to a specific temperature range. It is a process patent tied to that specific formulation and temperature sequence, not a blanket claim over using starch byproducts in feed. Anyone designing feed blocks with different binder chemistry, mixing order or temperature profile is working outside its literal claim scope, though it remains useful prior art to check against for near-identical formulations.
C12N, covering microorganisms and genetic engineering, appears in 48.7% of the 2,045 records in scope, making it the densest class by far, followed by A23K animal feed at 32.6% and C12P fermentation and enzymatic synthesis at 31.2%. C08B polysaccharide derivatives (9.8%) and C07K peptides and proteins (9.2%) are comparatively thin, suggesting more room for claims focused on the material chemistry of the byproduct itself rather than the upstream biological production route. These are shares of the full record set, and records can carry more than one class, so they do not sum to 100%.
Independently, for the most part. The dataset identifies only ten co-assignee pairs across the full set of 2,045 records, and the strongest of those pairs are repeat combinations of a company and its own named inventors rather than partnerships between separate companies. That pattern suggests most patenting in starch byproduct valorization happens inside single organisations, with limited formal cross-company collaboration visible in the assignee data.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Starch Byproduct Valorization covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Starch Byproduct Valorization in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole starch byproduct valorization 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.