Low-pH Viral Inactivation Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 87.6% concentration. The top 5 of 11 ranked assignees hold 78 of the 89 records in scope — a field with almost no room left at the centre.
- Peptide and separation claims dominate. C07K (peptides & proteins) touches 88.8% of records and B01D (filtration/separation) 51.7%, showing inactivation claims are inseparable from downstream purification hardware.
- Filing roughly doubled from 2021 to 2024. Four filings in 2021 grew to eight in 2024 — real momentum, even as 2025-2026 figures are still filling in behind publication lag.
Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (8) — 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 89 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Low-pH viral inactivation is a required step in most monoclonal antibody and recombinant protein purification trains, sitting between protein A capture and polishing chromatography. This landscape tracks 89 published records filed against a search string combining low-pH viral inactivation and viral reduction language with biopharmaceutical manufacturing, viral clearance, and protein purification context, restricted to C12P21/00, B01D61/14 and A61L2/18 classifications. The scope excludes patient-treatment and surface-disinfection filings, keeping the set focused on upstream and downstream bioprocess steps rather than clinical or environmental disinfection use.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the mid-2026 data cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate actual filing activity and should be read as provisional rather than declining.
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 89-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry several classes, the composition shares sum to well over 100%.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose from 4 in 2017 to a peak of 12 in 2020, cooled, then rebuilt — 4 filings in 2021 to 8 in 2024, a +100% move over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 1 by 2026) reflect publication lag, not a real slowdown.
IPC subclass composition
C07K (peptides & proteins) appears in 88.8% of the 89 records, confirming that inactivation claims are almost always written against a specific protein or antibody context rather than as a standalone chemical process. B01D (separation/filtration, 51.7%) and C12P (fermentation & enzymatic synthesis, 46.1%) are the next-heaviest classes, with A61L (sterilising/disinfecting, 13.5%) and C11D (detergents, 4.5%) marking the thinnest, least-claimed edges of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 89 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Viral Clearance Processing — Low-pH Viral Inactivation Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about viral clearance processing — low-ph viral inactivation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
US9346879B2 — Protein purification methods to reduce acidic species
The instant invention relates to the field of protein production and purification, and in particular to compositions and processes for controlling the amount of charge variants, aggregates, and fragments of a protein of interest, as well as host cell proteins, present in purified preparations by applying particular chromatography conditions during such protein purification.Filed by AbbVie, granted 2016-05-24. Anchors a family of related acidic-species-reduction filings that recur among the most-cited records in this set.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20130260419A1 | Continuous processing methods for biological products | 82 |
| 2 | US20130344084A1 | Cell culture methods to reduce acidic species | 48 |
| 3 | US9150645B2 | Cell culture methods to reduce acidic species | 40 |
| 4 | US9359434B2 | Cell culture methods to reduce acidic species | 35 |
| 5 | US20170157566A1 | Process control systems and methods for use with filters and filtration processes | 31 |
| 6 | US9334319B2 | Low acidic species compositions | 30 |
| 7 | US9346879B2 | Protein purification methods to reduce acidic species | 29 |
| 8 | US9266949B2 | Low acidic species compositions and methods for producing and using the same | 25 |
| 9 | US20190062419A1 | Protein purification methods to reduce acidic species | 21 |
| 10 | WO2015175679A2 | Process control systems and methods for use with filters and filtration processes | 20 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — treat this as a signal of influence on subsequent filers, not a ranking 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 data means for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC mix are read together: where the field is crowded, where it is still moving, and where the claim language has not caught up with the process.
The centre is closed
With 78 of 89 records held by five assignees, any new filing aimed at core low-pH hold-time or pH-shift chemistry is filing into dense prior art from established biologics manufacturers. The remaining six ranked assignees combine for a small residual share, and unranked entrants effectively have no foothold in the core claims.
Renewed activity after the 2020 peak
Filing volume peaked at 12 in 2020, dipped, then rebuilt from 4 filings in 2021 to 8 in 2024. That doubling suggests renewed investment in inactivation process claims rather than a mature, closed technology — even though 2025-2026 counts look thin due to publication lag.
Inactivation is claimed with hardware, not alone
Over half of records combine viral inactivation language with separation-process claims, and 46.1% also touch C12P fermentation/enzymatic synthesis. Filings that isolate inactivation chemistry from the surrounding filtration or fermentation step are the exception, not the rule.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to viral clearance processing — low-ph viral inactivation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the openings sit
Eleven assignees make up the entire ranked field for this search, with a steep drop after the leading names. Recent-year filing activity has gone quiet across most of the ranked group, which is as informative as the ranking itself.
A single dominant filer
The leading assignee holds 50 of the 89 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 4 — a gap that marks this as a field with one entrenched filer rather than a competitive cluster at the top.
A thin but real second tier
Positions two through five each file in the low single digits, enough to show sustained programme activity but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader's position on core claims.
Single-filing entrants close out the ranking
The bottom of the ranked list is made up of assignees with a single filing each, typical of companies patenting one specific process variant rather than building a portfolio around inactivation chemistry.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Genentech, Inc. | 1 | — |
| Amgen Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| AbbVie Inc. | 0 | — |
| AbbVie Biotherapeutics Inc. | 0 | — |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Company | 0 | — |
| Sartorius Stedim Chromatography Systems Ltd. | 0 | — |
| AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The ranking and IPC mix point to a field with one entrenched filer and several under-claimed process branches. The next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate or identifying where to file.
Map the leader's full claim set
With one assignee holding over half the records in scope, a freedom-to-operate review should start by mapping that portfolio's independent claims against any planned pH-shift or hold-time process before development work goes further.
Explore assignee portfolios in Eureka →Test white-space claim language
Continuous-flow inactivation and bioreactor-integrated monitoring both sit below the density of core pH-shift claims. Drafting a first claim in these areas benefits from checking prior art breadth before committing to a specific mechanism.
Run a white-space search in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
One assignee holds 50 of the 89 records in scope, making it by far the largest filer in this dataset. The next four ranked assignees combine with the leader for 78 records, or 87.6% of everything in scope, and the remaining six ranked assignees account for the rest down to a single filing each. This is a concentrated field with one clearly dominant portfolio rather than several evenly matched competitors.
Filing rose from 4 records in 2021 to 8 in 2024, a growth of 100% over that three-year span, after an earlier peak of 12 filings in 2020. Counts for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than an actual drop in activity. Read the 2024 figure as the most recent reliable year for trend comparison.
C07K (peptides and proteins) appears in 88.8% of the 89 records, meaning inactivation claims are almost always tied to a specific protein or antibody purification context. B01D (separation and filtration processes) appears in 51.7% and C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) in 46.1%, showing that inactivation is typically claimed together with the surrounding purification or fermentation hardware rather than as an isolated chemical step.
US9346879B2, assigned to AbbVie and granted in 2016, covers protein purification methods that reduce acidic species, aggregates and fragments by applying particular chromatography conditions during purification. It sits within a family of related acidic-species-reduction filings that rank among the most-cited records in this landscape, meaning later filers have repeatedly had to design their own chromatography conditions around this claim scope. Anyone drafting a purification process claim that touches charge-variant control during chromatography should review this filing and its family closely.
The IPC composition data shows C11D (detergent-related compositions) at just 4.5% of records and A61L (sterilising/disinfecting) at 13.5%, both far below the 88.8% density of core C07K peptide-purification claims. Continuous-flow inactivation configurations and bioreactor-integrated inactivation monitoring are similarly thin relative to the core pH-shift chemistry. These lower-density branches are worth a dedicated prior-art check before drafting, since they are less likely to run into the dominant leader's core claim set.
Research Viral Clearance Processing — Low-pH Viral Inactivation Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole viral clearance processing — low-ph viral inactivation patent landscape 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.