Experts predict that global food production will need to more than double in the next 25 years. There is no historical precedent for achieving growth of that magnitude in a single generation.
Maintaining existing yields is already a struggle in many regions; climate‑driven weather extremes and losses to plant diseases suppress yields for many major crops, while urbanisation and environmental degradation further restrict the availability of cultivable land. As the population expands and these pressures intensify, the need for innovative tools that can sustainably increase global food production has never been more urgent.
Historically, major yield improvements have come from large increases in chemical inputs such as inorganic fertilisers and pesticides and crop breeding programmes. A similar approach will not work this time around.
Chemical inputs are often extremely resource intensive, heavily reliant on fossil fuels, frequently associated with soil degradation, water contamination, and biodiversity loss. Some can even pose a threat to human and animal health.
The introduction of traits into crops through traditional breeding programmes is a painstaking process that cannot keep pace with the demands imposed by the changing climate and pathogens with short generation times. Genetic modification can achieve better outcomes in a fraction of the time, but “genetically modified” (“GM”) crops still face disproportionately stringent regulatory regimes in some parts of the world, especially where food abundance and a widespread lack of education about food production means that fear of imagined harms has eclipsed the genuine dangers of failing to act.
Europe illustrates this contradiction. Transgenic plants and the methods to produce them are patentable, incentivising investment and research, but strict regulations hinder their commercialization. Giving with one hand and taking with the other. Gene-edited crops have also, until recently, been treated as conventional GMOs, restricting their planting and sale. Fortunately, change is finally on the horizon, with the European Union provisionally agreeing on a new regulatory framework for plants obtained by new genomic techniques (NGTs) and the UK’s precision breeding act coming into effect. However, many regulatory regimes, including in Europe (even with the proposed reforms), are fundamentally still process‑based regulatory models. They regulate a crop based on how a trait was introduced into the crop rather than what that trait does. The result is a system that fixates on the tool instead of the outcome; distracted by the technology used to generate crops, rather than focussed on the benefits and risks of the specific traits that those crops deliver. It is like regulating steelmaking instead of the things that are made from steel: obsessing over whether the steel is cast or forged rather than whether the final product is a gun, a plough, or a scalpel.
Regulatory reform is slow and iterative by nature, involving cycles of consultation, technical review, bill drafting, revision, and votes. While that process grinds on, hopefully towards a mature scientifically literate conclusion where crops are regulated based on their characteristics, alternative avenues must be explored in parallel.
Microbial solutions to the rescue?
Harnessing the power and diversity of plant–microbial interactions – an approach that does not rely on the genetic modification of plants – offers a promising route to improve crop resilience and productivity while simultaneously reducing our reliance on inorganic chemical inputs.
In recent years, we have seen exciting advances in this space, along with a steady increase in investment, as companies develop and deploy microorganisms (and the molecules that they produce) to protect crops and enhance their growth. These microbes can act as biopesticides by providing protection against pathogens and pests, improve tolerance to abiotic stresses such as drought and salinity, and improve nutrient uptake and overall plant vigour as biofertilisers. Microbial bioremediation also offers a means of restoring degraded or previously unproductive land, enabling cultivation while helping to preserve ecologically valuable areas.
A boom in patent activity reflects an increasingly competitive sector
To guide our approach to building strong IP portfolios for companies in this space, we frequently monitor patent filing trends. We also analyse the defining characteristics of granted cases and how that changes as the technology and competitive landscape mature.
A striking finding from our recent analyses is the dramatic surge in global patent activity in this area. Recent data reveals a sharp increase not only in the number of patent applications, but also in the number of granted patents. One particularly interesting aspect is that this upward trend is accompanied by a clear strategic shift: the industry is moving away from traditional chemical growth stimulants and control agents, and embracing biological solutions. This is illustrated by the dramatic increase in the total number of published applications for microbial-based biocontrol agents and biostimulants over the last 15 years. This is shown below for major economies including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, United Kingdom, Japan, Korea, Russia and the US (see Fig. 1).1
If we take a closer look at the data for microbials, a remarkable trend emerges. Since 2010, there has been a ~ 630% global increase in the number of patent applications and a whopping ~ 850% rise in the number of granted patents (Fig. 2, pink line).
As you can see from comparing these two figures, only about half of published patent applications make it through to grant (though delays between publication and grant make a direct year-to-year comparison impossible). That grant rate is not all that unusual. And, of course, an application can still carry real commercial value even if it never results in granted claims. However, the numbers do hint that certain features make some applications more likely to succeed. Stay tuned for future blogs, where we will dig into some of the factors that tilt the odds of obtaining granted claims in your favour.
What makes this trend even more striking is that the increase is not reflected to the same extent across the agricultural sector as a whole. Take IPC class A01N 59/00 for example (the category covering inorganic biocides, pest repellents and attractants, and plant growth regulators), shown by the purple line in Fig. 2. The number of patent filings per year there grew over the same period, but only by about 140% and granted patents by roughly 290% over the same period. Growth, but modest when contrasted with that seen in the microbials sector.
From 2018 the difference in the trajectories of these two classes of product becomes apparent, with the number of granted patents for microbial biocontrol and biostimulant agents (A01N 63/00) exceeding those of inorganic biocides, pesticides and plant growth regulators (A01N 59/00) (Fig. 2). From 2021 onwards, the two classes begin to pull apart. The grant of patents for microbials keeps on climbing, whereas that of their inorganic counterparts declines.
We think that the diverging trajectories of these categories of products reflect the world’s growing appetite for more environmentally sustainable agricultural solutions, and the increased investment and competition shaping this sector. As for the apparent dip in the number granted cases for 2024, we expect that this is just a timing artefact; because our analysis was carried out in March 2026, many late‑stage cases will not yet have reached grant. We expect that the upward trend will continue into 2026 and beyond.
What is driving this surge in activity?
-
Sustainability & Economics: Governments, farmers and consumers are demanding eco-friendly alternatives. In contrast to their inorganic and synthetic counterparts, biological alternatives, such as microbial biostimulants and biocontrol agents, have often evolved to be target-specific, reducing off-target effects and harm to beneficial organisms and ecosystems. They can also improve plants’ resilience to abiotic stresses such as drought and biotic stresses such as disease, thereby reducing input costs.
One reason that adoption of microbials has so far been limited is that cheap mineral fertilisers left little reason for farmers to experiment. However, when shocks jolt the system – like that triggered by the recent closure of the Strait of Hormuz – they expose just how fragile global fertiliser supply chains really are. They also offer a glimpse of a future where prices are volatile and raw material supply is uncertain. In that world, even small efficiency gains from biologicals start to look far more valuable, and the case for more resilient, complementary inputs becomes much harder to ignore.
-
Regulatory Incentives: Across major agricultural markets, regulatory frameworks are being re-structured to facilitate the development and commercialisation of microbial crop solutions, reducing uncertainty for innovators and investors and helping these technologies reach the market more efficiently. This increases clarity for innovators, with clearer classifications, streamlined procedures, and targeted incentives, consequently reducing regulatory hurdles compared to chemical fertilisers and pesticides, which may help to reduce the costs of production and time to market. For example:
- Europe: Under the Green Deal and its Farm to Fork Strategy, which aims to halve chemical pesticide use by 2030, biostimulants are now recognised as a distinct category under the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR). Instead of being treated like plant protection products (which they were previously categorised as), they now are subject to less onerous regime and have a more predictable pathway to market. National administrative bodies have also streamlined the examination process for biocontrol applications. These changes have translated into an increase in marketing approvals for microbials, which are now outstripping those of their inorganic counterparts.
- United States: The Plant Biostimulants Act proposes amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to standardise definitions and approval processes, signalling firm support for biological tools in mainstream agriculture.
- Other jurisdictions: Countries such as Brazil, though not covered in our analysis above, already have favourable regulatory procedures. We expect that these markets will show a similar upward trend in patents for biocontrol agents and biostimulants.
What does this trend mean for you?
The shift away from inorganic chemical inputs, driven by a combination of policy changes, increased investment, technological advancements and environmental awareness suggests that the sector is rapidly maturing and becoming increasingly competitive.
As the sector matures, IP awareness is likely to become much more important. Especially with large increases in the number of granted patents in this area. If your company develops or sells microbe-based fertilisers or pesticides, then knowing how to navigate this increasingly competitive landscape is essential. A solid IP strategy may be the difference between success and failure, particularly in an area where would-be competitors can potentially easily find out the constituents of a microbe-based product and copy it without incurring substantial R&D costs.
To stay ahead, companies should evaluate which forms of IP protection will best align with their commercial goals. For patents, timing and filing strategy matter, as does the way microbial strains or consortia are defined. Optimising experimental and field trial design to best support the technical effects will be vital in determining the strength and scope of protection. It is equally important to understand how patent offices in your key markets examine applications in this field, as their approaches can differ significantly. Otherwise, your products may be exposed to competition much sooner in those markets.
Freedom to operate is just as critical. In a crowded market, companies must ensure that their products can be sold without infringing others’ rights. This remains one of the most critical, yet frequently overlooked, elements of a successful business strategy. Our companion blog on geographical trends and FTO considerations, due to be published soon, will offer a useful starting point.
Investors should look closely at a company’s IP position too – checking that key products are insulated from competition and that no third‑party rights could block market entry. This can be pivotal in minimising investment risk and protecting value.
If you would like to explore any of these strategic considerations, we’d love to hear from you – we are always happy to help shape a resilient, future‑proof IP position. Based on our data analysis in this field, in future articles we will look at some of the specific factors that can improve your IP position in key jurisdictions. Stay tuned for more insights.
References:
[1] In our analysis, we used the number of publications in International Patent Classification (IPC) class IPC class A01N 63/00 (biocides, pest repellents, attractants, and plant growth regulators containing microorganisms or substances derived from them), as a proxy for microbial-based biocontrol agents and biostimulants. We compared this to the number of publications in IPC classes including biocides, pest repellents or attractants, or plant growth regulators, either containing elements or inorganic compounds (A01N 59/00); data sourced from IP Quants which provides data coverage for: AT, AU, BR, CA, CH, CN, DE, DK, EP, ES, FI, FR, GB, JP, KR, LU, NL, NO, RU, SE, US and WO.
This blog was co-authored by Ben Tolley, Louise Atkins and Sarah Harvey.
Louise Atkins
Louise is a qualified UK and European Patent Attorney in the Life Sciences team in Bristol. Louise's work includes drafting and prosecuting UK, European and International patent applications.
Email: louise.atkins@mewburn.com
Sarah is an associate patent attorney working as part of our life sciences team. She has a degree in Biological Sciences from Oxford University. She completed her PhD at Warwick University in plant pathology looking at how pathogen effectors manipulate the plant immune response. Sarah then worked as a post-doc in the Centre for Novel Agricultural Products at York University on plant responses to biotic stress.
Email: sarah.harvey@mewburn.com
