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/wort-production-and-mashing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Brewing & BeveragesWort Production and Mashing Patents: Concentration, Trends and Open Claim Space
- Concentrated at the top. The five most active filers hold 231 of 337 records in scope, or 68.5% — a field where a handful of programmes set the claim boundaries.
- Beer-specific filing dominates. C12C covers 89.9% of the 337 records, with microorganism and enzyme classes (C12N, C12P) trailing well behind — most activity sits inside the core brewing process, not adjacent biology.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak. Activity peaked at 19 records in 2017; the most recent year is still incomplete due to publication lag, so the true current pace is understated.
337
Published Records
69%
Top-5 Share of All Records
US
Leading Jurisdiction
72
Active Filers Ranked
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 337 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape covers 337 published records matching wort production and mashing process claims, cross-referenced against enzyme conversion, lauter efficiency, adjunct ratio, boiling energy, trub removal and extract yield terms. The scope spans 2015 to 2026, with the most recent year necessarily incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months. Records are drawn from a mix of national and PCT filings, with the United States, the European Patent Office and WIPO the largest receiving offices in scope.
The technology sits at the intersection of process engineering and enzymology: mashing and lautering hardware claims (C12C) dominate the corpus, while a smaller but persistent set of records reaches into microorganism and enzyme composition claims (C12N, C12P) and food-adjacent formulation (A23L). Reading the two together shows where hardware claims stop and biological composition claims begin.
Records by filing year and IPC subclass
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Wort Production and Mashing 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 trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 337 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across International Patent Classification subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017 to present
Filing activity peaked at 19 records in 2017. The trend cannot be reduced to a growth rate here, since fewer than four complete years remain once publication lag is accounted for — treat the most recent years as undercounted rather than as a genuine slowdown.
IPC subclass distribution
C12C (Brewing of beer) appears in 89.9% of the 337 records, confirming that most filings are process- or apparatus-centred rather than purely biological. C12N (20.8%) and C12P (6.8%) mark the enzyme and microorganism edge of the field, while A23L (15.1%) and A23K (6.8%) show wort-adjacent claims reaching into food and feed applications. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100% of the record total and should not be added together.
Shares are the percentage of the 337 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 Wort Production and Mashing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Wort Production and Mashing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about wort production and mashing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative and most-cited records
Representative filing
US20020050477A1 — Mashing process (Pall Corporation, 2002-05-02)
PALL CORPORATION
Specification discloses the use of a dynamic cross-flow filtration system for the filtration of mash. Also disclosed are a mashing process, wherein mash is filtered and wort is obtained, and a process for the preparation of beer, as well as apparatuses and devices for performing one or more of these processes.Filed by Pall Corporation, a filtration specialist rather than a brewer — illustrating how equipment suppliers hold process claims that brewers must design around.
Most-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5021246A | Step mashing process for producing low alcohol beer | 141 |
| 2 | WO2005059084A1 | Mashing process | 113 |
| 3 | US4478854A | Method of treating plant polysaccharides | 51 |
| 4 | WO2005118769A1 | Mashing process and enzyme composition useful therein | 41 |
| 5 | US4844932A | Separation of wort from mash | 34 |
| 6 | US8993273B1 | Recirculation infusion mash system | 31 |
| 7 | US3795745A | Preparation of WORT for making beer | 29 |
| 8 | WO2007113292A2 | Mashing process | 28 |
| 9 | US20060240147A1 | Alcoholic beverages containing corn syrup substitutes | 27 |
| 10 | US4653388A | Brewing | 26 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings — they are a signal of foundational status, not of current commercial 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 Wort Production and Mashing 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 means for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the classification data are read together.
Concentration
68.5%
held by top 5 of 337 records
A small group sets the boundaries
The five most active assignees hold 231 of the 337 records in scope. That is a dense claim position for anyone entering mashing or wort-separation hardware without a licensing or design-around strategy already in hand.
Top 5 combined, 337-record base
Process vs. biology split
89.9% vs 20.8%
C12C vs C12N share of 337 records
Hardware claims outnumber biological ones
Beer-brewing process and apparatus claims (C12C) appear in nearly nine of every ten records, while microorganism and genetic engineering claims (C12N) appear in roughly one in five. Enzyme conversion work sits mostly as a supporting claim inside process patents rather than as a standalone biological filing.
IPC subclass shares, 337-record base
Filing momentum
19 in 2017
peak year filings
Activity has cooled from its 2017 high
The filing trend peaked at 19 records in 2017 and has not returned to that level since, though the most recent years understate true activity because of publication lag. Read the tail of the trend as incomplete, not as a declining field.
Annual filing counts, 2017 peak
Citation depth
141 citations
top-cited record
Foundational mashing patents still anchor the field
The most-cited record in scope, a step-mashing process for low-alcohol beer, carries 141 citations — far ahead of the next-most-cited filings. High citation counts here mark older foundational claims rather than currently active competitive threats.
Citation counts favour older filings
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 wort production and mashing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Wort Production and Mashing 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
Who holds the ranked positions
The ranking covers 72 companies counted in records, from a leader with 111 records down through a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants. Concentration is steep: the top 10 alone account for 281 of 337 records, or 83.4%.
Leader position
111 records
held by the top-ranked assignee
One filer sets the pace
The leading assignee's record count is more than seven times the fifth-place total of 15, and more than fifteen times tenth place at 7. That gap is unusually wide even for a concentrated field.
Leader vs. 5th and 10th place
Mid-table drop-off
15 to 7
records, 5th to 10th place
A steep drop after the leader
Positions five through ten cluster in single digits to mid-teens, suggesting a second tier of active but non-dominant filers rather than a smooth long tail.
Ranked positions 5-10
Co-filing
10 pairs
co-assignee pairs identified
Collaboration is limited and concentrated
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pairings recur around the same handful of organisations and named inventors — collaborative filing is the exception here, not the norm.
Co-assignee pair count
Recent-year filing momentum
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Heineken Supply Chain B.V. | 0 | — |
| Novozymes A/S | 0 | — |
| International N&H Denmark ApS | 0 | -100% |
| Corn Products Development, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. | 0 | — |
| The Brewing Research Foundation | 0 | — |
| ELEMENTAL MACHINES INC | 0 | -100% |
| Pall Corporation | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Wort Production and Mashing 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 dataset points to a field with a dominant leader, a thin second tier, and process claims that outnumber biological ones. The next step is usually narrower than a full landscape.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top filers
With 68.5% of records held by five assignees, any new mashing or lautering hardware concept should be checked against that group's active claims before development spend commits to a design.
Run a freedom-to-operate checkExplore the under-claimed branches
Boiling energy recovery, automated trub removal and continuous lautering sensors show thinner filing density than the core process claims — each is a candidate for a first-mover filing position.
Explore white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Wort Production and Mashing 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 wort production and mashing patents
The ranking covers 72 companies, and it is heavily front-loaded: the leading assignee holds 111 of the 337 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 15 records and tenth place at 7. The top five combined account for 68.5% of all records, and the top ten reach 83.4%. That means most freedom-to-operate work in this field should start with the leading handful of assignees rather than a broad survey of the full ranking.
Mashing process patents, classified mainly under C12C, cover the physical and procedural steps of converting grain into wort: temperature staging, filtration, lautering and wort separation. Enzyme conversion patents fall more often under C12N or C12P and address the biological or enzymatic composition used to break down starches during mashing. In this dataset C12C appears in 89.9% of the 337 records, while C12N appears in 20.8%, showing that most claims are process- or apparatus-led with enzyme claims as a supporting element rather than the primary invention.
Filing peaked at 19 records in 2017 and has not matched that level since, but this should not be read as a straightforward decline. Publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, so the most recent one to two years in any patent trend are always undercounted relative to true filing activity. There are also too few complete recent years in this dataset to compute a reliable growth rate, so the honest read is a cooling from a 2017 high with an understated tail rather than a confirmed slowdown.
US20020050477A1, filed by Pall Corporation, discloses a dynamic cross-flow filtration system for filtering mash, along with the associated mashing process and apparatus for producing wort. It is notable because it was filed by a filtration equipment specialist rather than a brewer, which is a pattern worth watching in this field: process claims on wort separation and filtration are held as often by equipment suppliers as by brewing companies. Anyone designing new mash filtration or wort-separation hardware should review this filing's specific claim scope directly rather than assume brewer-held patents are the only relevant prior art.
Based on the IPC composition in this dataset, boiling energy recovery, automated trub removal, adjunct ratio optimisation for non-barley grains, and continuous lautering efficiency sensing all show thinner filing density than the core mashing and lautering process claims that dominate under C12C. These are not guarantees of an open field, but they are areas where the concentrated top filers appear to have claimed less ground relative to their overall filing volume. A targeted novelty search on any one of these branches is the reasonable next step before committing to a filing strategy.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Wort Production and Mashing 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 Wort Production and Mashing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole wort production and mashing 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.