Wet and Retorted Pet Food Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
- One assignee dominates the ranking. The leader holds 78 records against a fifth-place count of just 1, a steep drop-off rather than a gradual taper.
- Filing peaked in 2018 at 22 records. Activity has since thinned; the tracked 2021-to-2024 span shows a 43% decline, a complete-year comparison that does not include the still-filling 2025-26 data.
- Packaging and sterilization claims sit alongside feed composition. A23K (animal feed) dominates class counts at 85, but layered-packaging class B32B and food-shaping class A23P each carry a meaningful share of the same 55 records.
Filing growth compares 2021 (7 records) with 2024 (4) — 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
This dataset tracks 55 published patent families filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine wet or retorted pet food claims with process elements such as retort sterilization, gravy texture, seam integrity, texture stability, sterilization value or packaging format. It sits at the intersection of food science and packaging engineering: a wet pet food claim is rarely just about the recipe, it is about how that recipe survives a thermal sterilization cycle inside a sealed pouch or can without breaking down in texture or compromising the seam.
Because the search terms bind the food claim to a process or packaging term, the set skews toward records where sterilization and packaging integrity are part of the invention, not just background art. That makes the technology composition below a reasonable proxy for where applicants are actually contesting claim space, rather than a generic sweep of every wet pet food filing on record.
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 55 records: when they were filed, and which IPC subclasses they touch.
A 2018 peak followed by a real but partial decline
Filings ran from 14 in 2017 up to a peak of 22 in 2018. The only complete-year comparison available, 2021 (7) against 2024 (4), shows a 43% drop. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still low because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months; they should not be read as a continued fall until later data lands.
Animal feed claims dominate, but packaging is not incidental
A23K (animal feed) appears on 85 of the record-level class tags, well ahead of A23L (foods and beverages, 10) and A23P (food shaping and forming, 10). B32B (layered products and laminates, 9) and the single B65B (packaging and wrapping) tag confirm that pouch and can construction is a secondary but persistent claim axis in this set, alongside the smaller A23J (proteins and food peptides, 5).
Shares are the percentage of 120 class assignments (one record can carry several), not of the record count.
Go deeper on Wet and Retorted Pet Food with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about wet and retorted pet food and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2016176466A1 | Process of preparing a sterilized wet pet food product | 18 |
| 2 | US20180110240A1 | Wet pet food and processes of making and using the same | 10 |
| 3 | WO2016176465A1 | Wet pet food product comprising a composite meat product | 10 |
| 4 | WO2018063468A1 | Microwaved multi-ply structures, microwaved packages, and methods of sterilization | 9 |
| 5 | US20180295862A1 | Process of preparing a wet pet food, wet pet food produced by the process and uses thereof | 9 |
| 6 | WO2016176456A1 | Wet pet food product comprising a meat analogue | 9 |
| 7 | US20210106028A1 | Pet food product | 6 |
| 8 | US20170258112A1 | Pet food | 5 |
| 9 | WO2019123385A1 | Pet food product | 4 |
| 10 | WO2018125631A1 | Pet food product comprising microalgae as binder | 4 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records that have simply had more time to accumulate citations; treat this as a signal of influence on subsequent filings, not of current technical 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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the class composition are read together.
One filer, then a long tail
The leader's 78 records dwarf the fifth-place count of 1. That is not a gradual taper; it is a single dominant filer surrounded by companies with a handful of records each, including several individual inventors rather than corporations.
A real slowdown, not yet a stall
The complete-year comparison from 2021 to 2024 shows filings dropping by 43%. Because 2025-26 data is still filling in under the usual 18-month publication lag, this should be read as a genuine cooling from the 2018 peak rather than evidence the field has stopped.
Feed composition still leads, packaging trails
Animal feed claims (A23K, 85 tags) outnumber layered-packaging claims (B32B, 9 tags) by a wide margin at the class level, but the packaging tag's persistence alongside the single B65B record signals that seam and pouch construction is a recurring secondary claim rather than a one-off.
US and Europe run neck and neck
Receiving-office counts put the United States at 21 and the EPO at 20, with WIPO/PCT filings at 14 behind them. Australia, Hong Kong and Canada each sit in single or low double digits, indicating the contest is concentrated in two jurisdictions rather than spread evenly worldwide.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to wet and retorted pet food, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is open
The ranked leaders are dominated by one corporate filer, several other pet food and packaging majors with smaller footprints, and a handful of individual inventors. Recent-year momentum has gone flat across the board.
A single filer holds the bulk of the ranking
The top-ranked assignee's record count is far ahead of every other entrant in the 12-company ranking, with the gap to fifth place (1 record) underscoring how narrow the contest below the leader actually is.
Packaging and pet food majors hold single-digit shares
Beyond the leader, the ranking includes established pet food and food-packaging names alongside independent inventors, each with a handful of records. None shows renewed filing in the latest tracked year.
Collaboration is limited and inventor-led
The ten identified co-assignee pairs mostly link the leading corporate filer with named individual inventors, rather than showing cross-company joint filings. That points to internal R&D credited jointly, not external partnerships.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Mars, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Printpack Illinois, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Uni-Charm Corporation | 0 | — |
| Societe des Produits Nestle SA | 0 | — |
| SCHUMACHER HOLGER | 0 | — |
| MCGRANE SCOTT | 0 | — |
| MARSHALL JAMES | 0 | — |
| MARSHALL EMILY | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a few concrete next steps for teams evaluating freedom-to-operate or new filing angles in this space.
Check the packaging-format claims directly
B32B and B65B tags are a small fraction of this set but sit on claims about seam integrity and microwave sterilization that could constrain packaging redesign work.
Explore packaging claimsWatch for renewed filing after the 2025-26 lag clears
The apparent drop in 2025-26 filings is partly a publication artefact; revisit the trend once those years have had time to populate.
Track filing trendsMap the leader's family structure
With 78 records against a fifth-place count of 1, understanding how the leading filer's families relate to each other matters more than benchmarking against the rest of the ranking.
Analyze assignee familiesCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads the 12-company ranking with 78 records, far ahead of the fifth-place holder at 1 record. This is a steep concentration rather than a gradual taper, meaning most of the remaining ranked companies and individual inventors hold only a handful of records each. Anyone assessing freedom-to-operate in this space should treat the leader's portfolio as the primary reference point before looking at the rest of the field.
Filings peaked in 2018 at 22 records and the only complete-year comparison available, 2021 against 2024, shows a 43% decline. However, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the very recent 2025-26 counts are understated and should not be read as proof the field has stopped. The honest read is a real cooling from the 2018 peak, with the most current trend still unresolved.
The dominant IPC class is A23K, animal feed, tagged on 85 of the record-level classifications, reflecting that most filings are primarily about feed composition. Smaller but persistent classes cover food shaping and forming (A23P), foods and beverages generally (A23L), layered packaging materials (B32B), proteins and peptides (A23J), and packaging and wrapping (B65B). The presence of packaging classes alongside feed classes reflects the search criteria's focus on sterilization and packaging integrity as part of the invention, not just background.
The United States (21 filings) and the European Patent Office (20 filings) are close to each other and ahead of WIPO/PCT filings (14). Australia and Hong Kong each show 10 filings, with Canada at 6. This spread suggests the commercial contest for wet and retorted pet food technology is concentrated primarily in the US and European markets.
The most-cited record is WO2016176466A1, a process for preparing a sterilized wet pet food product, cited 18 times within this corpus. Its companion filing, WO2016176465A1, covering a composite meat product, is cited 10 times, and several other US and WO filings on wet pet food processes and multi-ply sterilization structures sit close behind at 9-10 citations each. High citation counts inside a searched corpus tend to favour older filings that have simply had more time to accumulate citations, so these should be read as influential precedents rather than as the most commercially active claims today.
Research Wet and Retorted Pet Food in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole wet and retorted pet food 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.