[The IPKat] Recipe for success: patenting cultivated meat technology

[Claire Gregg]

Recipe for success: patenting cultivated meat technology

 Dr Claire Gregg Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - #patents, Claire Gregg, Convention on Biological Diversity, cultivated meat, Nagoya Protocol, OzKat

Cultivated (lab-grown) meat is a rapidly growing market, involving technology that sits uniquely at the intersection between patent law, food regulation and sovereign genetic resources.

Few jurisdictions have approved lab-grown meat products to date, with some even banning these controversial products from the menu. In addition to regulatory and patentability challenges, cultivated meat products also present some specific ownership and access compliance challenges. This article provides a flavour of the global regulatory landscape, patentability issues and key considerations in the use of animal genetic material in cultivated meat inventions.

What is cultivated meat?

Cultivated meat is produced by growing animal stem cells in a bioreactor to produce muscle, fat, and connective tissue without the need to raise and slaughter animals. The cells are cultivated in an oxygen- and nutrient-rich culture medium supplemented with growth factors to mimic natural growth conditions, and the resulting tissue harvested, processed, and shaped into meat products for consumption.

Cultivated meat offers several advantages, including reduced environmental impact compared to conventional livestock farming and produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, it can improve food safety and animal welfare by eliminating the need for animal slaughter and reducing the risk of contamination and antibiotic resistance. However, lab-grown meat attracts controversy for various reasons, including ethical, social and environmental concerns.

Approval of cultivated meat

Meat Kat

Since 2020, only a handful of jurisdictions have embraced lab-grown meat, including Singapore, the Netherlands, Israel and the United States (although some states, like Florida and Alabama have banned its sale). Australia recently entered the arena with the first Australian lab-grown Japanese quail foie gras approved for sale in Singapore in 2024, followed in 2025 by approval of the same product by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), making it the first cultivated meat product to receive regulatory approval in Australia. On the other hand, Italy has issued a blanket ban on lab-grown meat.

In both the EU and the UK, cultivated meat products are regulated as novel foods and require pre-market approval from relevant authorities – the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission in the EU, and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) in the UK. While no cultivated meat products are currently approved for human consumption in either jurisdiction, several applications are under review, and the UK recently launched a "regulatory sandbox" to accelerate future approvals. The UK also approved cultivated meat for use in pet food in 2024.

Patentability of cultivated meat technology

There are many aspects to cultivated meat technology that could give rise to patent protection. The patenting challenges associated with these technologies are not new to the biotech industry, including:

·                     Distinguishing engineered cell lines from natural counterparts. Cultivated meat may be prepared from primary adult stem cells, pluripotent stem cells or immortalised cell lines of animal origin, which must be sufficiently distinguished from naturally occurring genetic material to be patent-eligible subject matter.

·                     High prior‑art density in upstream biotechnology. Bioreactors, culture media, growth factors and other equipment or components used in cultivated meat products often overlap heavily with established tissue‑engineering prior art, giving rise to novelty and inventive step issues.

·                     Distinguishing cultivated meat products from natural meat products. The close resemblance of cultivated meat to conventional meat can lead to difficulties distinguishing from naturally occurring meat products. Further, product‑by‑process claims may not be permitted in some jurisdictions without structural differentiation of the product.

·                     Vulnerability of broad or functionally-defined claims. Broad claims or claims defined by function or result, may be difficult to obtain and vulnerable to invalidation. Enablement and written description issues can also arise where cellular behaviour is unpredictable, species differences are not supported by data, or the specification lacks sufficient exemplification.

·                     Terminology and definitional uncertainty in an emerging field. Key terms (e.g., "cultivated meat", "immortalisation", "differentiation efficiency") may lack accepted meanings in the art, making claims unclear in the absence of clear definitions.

·                     Enforcement challenges for manufacturing‑process claims. Claims to manufacturing processes or key steps can be difficult to enforce and/or may be relatively easy to circumvent.

 

Ownership challenges in cultivated meat technology

While animal cells are not typically subject to the same patentable subject matter exclusions as human cells, cultivated meat presents specific challenges in relation to the ownership and use of animal cell lines.

Since 1993, animal genetic resources are subject to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), supplemented by the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. Under the CBD, countries have sovereign rights to regulate access to genetic resources within their borders. The Nagoya Protocol gives effect to the CBD by establishing a framework that governs access to genetic resources in exchange for a fair share of resulting benefits to traditional custodians. According to the Nagoya Protocol, access to genetic resources requires permits, prior informed consent from the country of origin and mutually agreed terms setting out benefit-sharing obligations.

The CBD has been ratified by nearly every country in the world (except the US, Andorra, Iraq and Somalia) and the European Union. Over 130 countries have also ratified the Nagoya Protocol, including the UK and European Union. Some countries, like Australia, have not ratified the Nagoya Protocol but have consistent local legal frameworks in place. Therefore, it is important to be aware that non-compliance with the CBD and Nagoya Protocol could jeopardise patent rights relying on animal genetic materials in most countries.

Proprietary or culturally significant breeds can also give rise to ownership rights in cell lines by breeders or traditional custodians, and may also be the subject of material transfer agreements, research agreements or other contractual arrangements. However, absent a global system for registering and protecting animal genetic resources (akin to the protection afforded to plant varieties), it can be difficult for researchers and industry to identify the owners of animal genetic resources.

Final morsels

As global markets begin to feast on the future of cultivated meat, the recipe for success requires a strategic approach to regulatory approval, IP due diligence, as well as patent drafting, filing and portfolio management. When seeking to protect inventions involving animal cell lines, it is also important to have regard to International treaties and proprietary rights. Compliance with the CBD and Nagoya Protocol could be the secret sauce to ensure patent rights are robust and avoid costly ownership disputes.

 

Disclaimer

This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended addressee(s). It is confidential, subject to copyright, and may be the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this transmission. If the receiver is not an intended addressee, please accept our apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no other act on the email. Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or corrupted during transmission. Also our network may delay or reject delivery of an email sent to us, so please ensure an acknowledgement of receipt is received if you wish to confirm delivery.