Mapping the Patent Landscape of Fermented Food Innovations for Gut Health: Technology Gaps, White Spaces, and Innovation Pathways

Fermented foods represent promising platforms for gut-health innovation because of their microbial diversity, bioactive components, and functional properties. However, the technological landscape remains unevenly developed, with limited understanding of innovation trajectories, concentrations, gaps, and emerging white spaces. This study mapped the patent landscape of fermented food innovations targeting gut health, identified innovation gaps and white spaces, and developed an evidence-informed innovation pathways framework. Patent records were retrieved from the Lens database, where 23,004 initial records were refined to 1,163 records, further screened to 336 documents, and consolidated into 189 patent families. Twelve analytical dimensions were examined, including temporal trends, jurisdictions, technological classifications, innovation actors, citation patterns, and legal status. Results revealed an expanding and multidisciplinary innovation landscape but substantial technological concentration around conventional dairy-based and probiotic-centered systems, particularly Lactobacillus and Lactobacteriaceae pathways, selected jurisdictions, and established innovation actors. Integrated analysis identified ten interconnected gaps and white spaces encompassing alternative food matrices, localized fermentation resources, novel microbial strains and consortia, plant-based and non-dairy products, postbiotics, targeted gut-health mechanisms, emerging geographic systems, less concentrated ownership niches, inactive or expired patents, and interdisciplinary innovation networks. These findings informed the GAP-TO-GROWTH Innovation Pathways Framework, which translates patent intelligence into strategic solutions, implementation pathways, and innovation outcomes. Overall, the study advances patent landscape analysis beyond descriptive mapping by providing a solution-oriented framework for research prioritization, technological differentiation, intellectual property development, commercialization, and sustainable fermented food innovation for gut health.

: Patent landscape analysis; Gap-to-Growth Innovation Pathways Framework; Patent families; Probiotics; Intellectual property

1. Bessen, J. (2008). The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: An anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(4), 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbp008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3–4), 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. de Rassenfosse, G., Dernis, H., Guellec, D., Picci, L., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2013). The worldwide count of priority patents: A new indicator of inventive activity. Research Policy, 42(3), 720–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.11.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. European Patent Office, & United States Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Cooperative Patent Classification. https://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2010). Transnational patents and international markets. Scientometrics, 82(1), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0072-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Giuri, P., Mariani, M., Brusoni, S., Crespi, G., Francoz, D., Gambardella, A., Garcia-Fontes, W., Geuna, A., Gonzales, R., Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., Le Bas, C., Luzzi, A., Magazzini, L., Nesta, L., Nomaler, Ö., Palomeras, N., Patel, P., Romanelli, M., & Verspagen, B. (2007). Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey. Research Policy, 36(8), 1107–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.07.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Grant, E., Van den Hof, M., & Gold, E. R. (2014). Patent landscape analysis: A methodology in need of harmonized standards of disclosure. World Patent Information, 39, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2014.09.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Gudelos, J. T. (2025a). Patent database analysis on nanotechnology-driven drug delivery systems for Huntington’s disease. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 12(1), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12010018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gudelos, J. T. (2025b). Reverse aging technology patents for 20 years (2003–2023): Trends and insights. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 12(9), 2762–2786. https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800244 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00124-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hernández-Velázquez, R., & Bokulich, N. A. (2026). Unlocking the biotechnological potential of traditional fermented food microbiomes. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 100, Article 103550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2026.103550 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hill, C., Guarner, F., Reid, G., Gibson, G. R., Merenstein, D. J., Pot, B., Morelli, L., Canani, R. B., Flint, H. J., Salminen, S., Calder, P. C., & Sanders, M. E. (2014). Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 11(8), 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Khodavirdipour, A., Piroozmand, A., Jafari, A., & others. (2022). What, where, when and how of COVID-19 patents landscape: A bibliometrics review. Frontiers in Medicine, 9, Article 925369. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.925369 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kuan, Y.-C., Lin, Y.-C., & Chen, D.-Z. (2021). Characterizing patent assignees by their structural positions relative to a field's evolutionary trajectory. Journal of Informetrics, 15(4), Article 101187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101187 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555833 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2012). Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1442–1458. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22655 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208X287171 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Marco, M. L., Sanders, M. E., Gänzle, M., Arrieta, M.-C., Cotter, P. D., De Vuyst, L., Hill, C., Holzapfel, W., Lebeer, S., Merenstein, D., Reid, G., Wolfe, B. E., Hutkins, R., & the ISAPP Fermented Foods Panel. (2021). The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on fermented foods. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 18, 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-020-00390-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mogee, M. E. (1991). Using patent data for technology analysis and planning. Research-Technology Management, 34(4), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1991.11670748 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Mukherjee, A., Breselge, S., Dimidi, E., Marco, M. L., & Cotter, P. D. (2024). Fermented foods and gastrointestinal health: Underlying mechanisms. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 21(4), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-023-00869-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Nishijima, S., Seki, N., Ishida, A., Takahashi, S., & Hattori, M. (2021). Gut microbiome status of urban and rural Filipino adults in relation to diet and metabolic disorders. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 368(20), fnab149. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnab149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2023: Enabling transitions in times of disruption. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0b55736e-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Pénin, J. (2018). Patent intermediaries and the market for inventions: A review and research agenda. Technovation, 76–77, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Samantaray, P., & Saha, S. (2026). Decoding the microbial diversity of Indian fermented foods: Integrating ethnobiology, multi-omics and functional insights. Foods, 15(4), Article 687. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040687 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., & Criscuolo, C. (2013). Measuring patent quality: Indicators of technological and economic value. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2013/03. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4522wkw1r8-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555502 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Trippe, A. (2015). Guidelines for preparing patent landscape reports. World Patent Information, 40, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2014.10.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Valentino, V., Magliulo, R., Farsi, D., Cotter, P. D., O'Sullivan, O., Ercolini, D., & De Filippis, F. (2024). Fermented foods, their microbiome and its potential in boosting human health. Microbial Biotechnology, 17(2), e14428. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14428 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. van Rijn, J., et al. (2023). Patent landscape analysis—Contributing to the identification of technology trends and informing research and innovation funding policy. Microbial Biotechnology, 16(4), 690–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14201 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Verspagen, B. (2007). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks: A study on the history of fuel cell research. Advances in Complex Systems, 10(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525907000943 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Walter, J., Maldonado-Gómez, M. X., & Martínez, I. (2024). Our extended microbiome: The human-relevant metabolites and biology of fermented foods. Cell Metabolism, 36(4), 684–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2024.03.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Wastyk, H. C., Fragiadakis, G. K., Perelman, D., Dahan, D., Merrill, B. D., Yu, F. B., et al. (2021). Gut-microbiota-targeted diets modulate human immune status. Cell, 184(16), 4137–4153.e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.06.019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Whalen, R., & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). The patent agent game: Patent agents and the innovation process. Research Policy, 43(6), 1083–1096. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2025). Guide to the International Patent Classification. WIPO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. World Intellectual Property Organization. (n.d.). International Patent Classification (IPC). https://www.wipo.int/en/web/classification-ipc [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. World Intellectual Property Organization. (n.d.). Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). https://www.wipo.int/pct/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Physiochemical and Consumer Acceptability of Biscuit Produced from Wheat and African Oil Bean Flour Blends
• Development and Market Potential of Oyster Mushroom Powder
• Association Between Demographics and Food Security Awareness in Seremban, Malaysia
• Identification of Oil Producing Yeast and Characterization of Its Oil
• Determinants of Consumers’ Behavioral Intention to Purchase Seafood Online: A UTAUT-Based Analysis in Surigao Del Sur, Philippines