Alternative proteins put patent strategies to the test as legal challenges rise, NLO analysis showed

The rapid rise of alternative proteins was reshaping not only how food was produced and consumed, but also how intellectual property was being protected, with new data showing that patents in food chemistry faced significantly higher legal risks than most other technology sectors.

• Patent filings linked to alternative proteins drove growth in food chemistry patents, with the United States and the Netherlands the most active countries at the European Patent Office in 2024.

• Food chemistry patents faced a 13% opposition rate at the EPO, more than triple the average across all technology sectors.

• Roughly two-thirds of opposed food patents were revoked or partially revoked, creating heightened legal risk for alternative protein innovators.

Patent activity in alternative proteins had increased steadily over the past decade, reflecting strong consumer demand for more sustainable, ethical and health-conscious food options. Companies across plant-based, precision fermentation and other protein technologies had accelerated research into ingredients, processes, texture systems and functional performance, all of which relied heavily on food chemistry.

To protect those investments, innovators increasingly turned to patents. Filings in International Patent Classification class A23, which covered food and food treatment technologies, had grown consistently, with alternative proteins now accounting for a substantial share of that expansion. Applicants from the United States, the Netherlands, China, South Korea and Japan were among the most active, with the United States and the Netherlands ranking as the top two filing countries in food chemistry at the European Patent Office during 2024.

However, while patenting activity surged, the legal environment surrounding food chemistry became more complex. Data from the EPO showed that patents in this field faced an opposition rate of around 13%, compared with an average of just 4% across all technology areas. When combined with historical outcomes of opposition proceedings, this meant that approximately 8% to 9% of food-related patents lost some or all of their value after grant, compared with roughly 2% to 2.5% outside the food sector.

Alternative protein patents were particularly exposed. The innovation space was increasingly crowded, with multiple companies working on similar ingredients, formulations and processing methods. Patent claims frequently overlapped in areas such as texture, flavor, nutritional enhancement and health-related functionality. At the same time, the commercial stakes were high and development timelines were fast, increasing the likelihood that legal disputes would emerge around product launches and market entry.

Once a European patent was granted, third parties had a nine-month window to file an opposition. Multi-party oppositions were not uncommon, especially in competitive fields such as alternative proteins. The outcomes of these proceedings followed a consistent pattern: around one-third of opposed patents were revoked entirely, one-third were maintained in a limited form, and one-third were upheld as granted.

In practice, this meant that securing a granted patent at the EPO was not the end of the process. Statistically, only one in three patents survived opposition without modification. For companies operating in alternative proteins, opposition risk had become a central consideration in long-term intellectual property strategy.

Opposition proceedings also differed fundamentally from the initial examination phase. Once a patent was challenged, the scrutiny intensified, with the EPO reassessing novelty and inventiveness in light of new arguments and prior art. This shift placed different demands on patentees and their representatives, requiring not only technical expertise but also strategic experience in adversarial proceedings.

NLO, a European intellectual property firm, reported working closely with alternative protein companies to address these challenges across the full patent lifecycle. Its work in food chemistry intellectual property spanned patent drafting, freedom-to-operate analysis and representation in opposition and appeal proceedings before the EPO.

According to NLO, careful drafting at the application stage was increasingly important, as claims needed to anticipate potential future challenges in a crowded innovation landscape. Freedom-to-operate analyses were also becoming more critical as companies prepared for commercialization in markets where overlapping patents were common.

The firm also highlighted the growing role of artificial intelligence in patent strategy. Advanced AI-based search tools were being used to identify difficult-to-find prior art that conventional methods could miss. In one recent opposition case cited by NLO, AI-supported searching uncovered a key document that proved decisive in challenging a problematic patent.

As the alternative protein market continued to expand, the balance between innovation and legal risk showed no sign of easing. Filing a patent application alone was no longer sufficient to protect commercial value. Instead, companies increasingly needed strategies that accounted for opposition, enforcement and the competitive realities of a fast-moving sector.

For innovators, the message was clear: intellectual property in alternative proteins required ongoing attention long after grant, with legal resilience becoming as important as technical novelty.