Sugar Evaporation & Crystallization Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- 41.2% concentration. The top 5 of 257 records in scope account for 106 filings — a field with a clear leading cluster rather than an even spread.
- One assignee dominates. The leading filer holds 35 records, more than three times the count in fifth place (10), which signals a single company setting the pace on core process claims.
- Filing has gone quiet since the 2022 peak. Activity peaked at 12 records in 2022; publication lag means 2025-2026 figures are still filling in, so read the recent dip with that in mind.
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. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 257 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this dataset covers
This landscape maps 257 published patent records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that reference sugar evaporation or crystallization process control — multiple-effect evaporators, vacuum pan operation, seeding slurry management, crystal size control, massecuite viscosity and steam economy. The scope spans core sugar refining classifications alongside adjacent food, separation and biomass-derivative categories, reflecting how crystallization technology gets claimed both as a standalone process step and as part of downstream product and equipment patents.
Filing activity is concentrated in a handful of jurisdictions and a small set of assignees, with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants behind them. The technology composition data below shows where crystallization claims overlap with confectionery, biomass separation and saccharide-extraction categories — useful context for anyone trying to work out whether a given claim sits inside core sugar-refining art or a neighbouring field.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 257-record dataset: filing activity by year, and the IPC subclasses those records fall under. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, the composition shares add up to more than the record total — that is expected and is how the chart below reads.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose from 4 in 2017 to a peak of 12 in 2022, then declined toward 0 by 2024 — a -100% swing over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete due to the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, so the apparent drop-off should not be read as the field going cold.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
C13B (sugar production and refining) anchors the field at 56.8% of the 257 records, followed by C13K (saccharides from natural sources) at 24.5% and B01D (separation processes) at 23.3%. The presence of A23G (confectionery) at 21.8% and C07H (sugars and nucleic acids) at 14.0% shows crystallization claims regularly crossing into product and biochemical categories rather than staying confined to refining equipment.
Shares are the percentage of the 257 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Sugar Evaporation and Crystallization with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about sugar evaporation and crystallization and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this field
US9309576B2 — Sugar crystallization control system and method
Describes a closed-loop control method for sugar crystallization: during the crystallization process, the system determines supersaturation of a sugar slurry of syrup and regulates the influx of syrup into that slurry to promote crystallization based on the measured supersaturation.Filed by Rockwell Automation Technologies, published 2016-04-12 — a control-systems filing rather than a chemistry or equipment claim, which matters for freedom-to-operate analysis.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4338350A | Crystallized, readily water-dispersible sugar product | 84 |
| 2 | WO2013166469A2 | Methods for treating lignocellulosic materials | 76 |
| 3 | US5597416A | Method of making crystalline sugar and products resulting therefrom | 63 |
| 4 | US5080923A | Process of refining saccharide crystals during food processing | 58 |
| 5 | US5454952A | Method and apparatus for fractionation of sugar containing solution | 51 |
| 6 | US6406548B1 | Sugar cane membrane filtration process | 50 |
| 7 | US5619043A | System for acquiring an image of a multi-phase fluid by measuring backscattered light | 46 |
| 8 | WO2001014595A2 | Sugar cane membrane filtration process | 41 |
| 9 | EP0052919A2 | Crystallized, readily water-dispersible sugar product | 36 |
| 10 | US20020011246A1 | Process for produciton of purified cane juice for sugar manufacture | 33 |
Citation counts inside this corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not 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 data means for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the assignee, jurisdiction and citation data are read together.
A small group holds the core claims
The top 5 assignees account for 106 of the 257 records in scope, with the leader alone holding 35 — over three times the count in fifth place. New entrants working on core vacuum-pan or seeding-slurry process claims should expect dense prior art from this cluster.
US filing leads, but PCT and EPO both matter
The United States receives the largest single share of filings (74), with Europe (39), WIPO/PCT (24), Australia (21), Canada (17) and the UK (15) all represented. A filing strategy focused only on the US misses meaningful activity routed through PCT and EPO.
Influence sits with older, foundational filings
The most-cited record in this corpus, US4338350A on crystallized water-dispersible sugar product, carries 84 citations — well ahead of the next most-cited records. High citation counts here reflect age and foundational status more than current commercial weight.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to sugar evaporation and crystallization, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The assignee ranking covers 100 companies counted across the 257 records in scope — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the full ranking the dataset returns. Activity is concentrated at the top, with a long tail of single- or few-filing organisations behind the leaders.
One filer sets the pace
The leading assignee's 35 records put it well clear of the field; fifth place holds 10 and tenth place holds 8, indicating a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one.
Related-entity filing is common at the top
The strongest co-assignee pair appears together on 24 records, consistent with a parent-subsidiary filing pattern rather than an arm's-length collaboration. This matters when assessing true competitive concentration versus corporate structure.
Recent-year filing has gone quiet across the leaders
Every one of the assignees tracked for recent-year momentum shows 0 filings in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this reflects incomplete recent data at least as much as an actual pullback.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Virdia, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Fuisz Technologies Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Virdia Ltd. | 0 | — |
| TATE & LYLE IND | 0 | — |
| The Hershey Company | 0 | — |
| Danisco Sweeteners Oy | 0 | — |
| CJ CheilJedang Corp. | 0 | — |
| DEDINI S A IND DE BASE | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, white-space identification, or competitive tracking.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on control-system claims
US9309576B2 and similar filings claim crystallization control logic rather than chemistry — worth checking against any automated dosing or sensing approach before implementation.
Explore in EurekaTrack the leading assignee's recent filings directly
With the top filer holding more than three times the fifth-place count, monitoring its filing activity closely is more informative than watching the field average.
Set up tracking in EurekaAssess the under-claimed branches for a first-filer position
Sub-areas like real-time viscosity sensing and automated seeding control show thinner direct coverage than core refining claims — worth a deeper prior-art check before drafting.
Search white space in EurekaCommon questions about this field
One assignee leads with 35 of the 257 records in scope, more than three times the count held by the fifth-ranked filer at 10. The top 5 assignees combined account for 106 records, or 41.2% of the field, so concentration sits with a small group rather than being evenly spread. The remaining ranked assignees, out of 100 total in the ranking, form a long tail of far fewer filings each.
Filing peaked at 12 records in 2022 and declined toward 2024, showing a -100% change between 2021 (2 filings) and 2024 (0 filings). However, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as a real slowdown yet. The safest complete-year comparison point is 2024; anything after that is still filling in.
US9309576B2, assigned to Rockwell Automation Technologies and published in 2016, claims a closed-loop method that determines supersaturation of a sugar slurry and regulates syrup influx to promote crystallization based on that measurement. It is a control-systems claim rather than a chemistry or equipment claim, so it is most relevant to anyone building automated dosing or supersaturation-feedback systems. Freedom-to-operate analysis should focus on the specific control logic and sensing approach rather than crystallization chemistry generally.
C13B (sugar production and refining) covers 56.8% of the 257 records in scope and is the anchor class for this field. C13K (saccharides from natural sources) at 24.5% and B01D (separation processes) at 23.3% are the next most relevant, with A23G (confectionery) and C07H (sugars and nucleic acids) also worth checking since crystallization claims frequently cross into those categories. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, searching across all of these together gives fuller coverage than any single class alone.
Sub-areas including real-time massecuite viscosity sensing, automated seeding slurry dosing control, steam economy optimisation across multi-effect evaporator trains, and crystal size distribution feedback control show comparatively thin direct coverage relative to the core C13B refining classes. This does not mean these areas are unclaimed, but that dense prior art from the leading assignees is concentrated elsewhere, in core process and equipment claims. A targeted prior-art search in these narrower branches is the practical next step before drafting.
Research Sugar Evaporation and Crystallization in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole sugar evaporation and crystallization 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.