Nintendo and its subsidiary, The Pokémon Company, sued Pocketpair, the developer of Palworld, alleging numerous patent infringements pertaining to creature-capture and other features. The legal action was prompted by the game’s worldwide success since its January 2024 release.

A recent court ruling, however, dealt Nintendo a serious blow: important claims were either denied or contested, undermining the company’s standing and casting doubt on the viability of its patent strategy in the video game industry.

What Is at the Heart of the Conflict?

Nintendo’s lawsuit focuses on alleged violations of Pokémon-like game mechanics, specifically riding creatures, using item-based summons, and catching creatures. Nintendo claims that Pocketpair used the patents without the required license, and they cover mechanics used in Palworld.

Prior-art arguments and assertions that Nintendo’s patents are unduly expansive are part of Pocketpair’s defense. Nintendo’s position was even referred to as a “Hail Mary” move by a U.S. patent law expert, who said it might not withstand legal scrutiny.

One patent is rejected by JPO for lacking an inventive step

One of the three patents at the heart of the dispute was rejected by the Japan Patent Office for lack of inventive step, reportedly causing a significant blow to Nintendo’s legal campaign. Since 2024, Nintendo and Pocketpair have been involved in a legal battle in Tokyo District Court over three patents. Nintendo is requesting damages of 5 million yen, or about $33,000 USD, for alleged infringement. Citing earlier instances from other games, including ARK, Monster Hunter 4, and even Pokémon GO, the JPO’s ruling determined that the rejected patent lacked the required inventive step, undermining Nintendo’s claim of novelty.

This decision may have wider ramifications for the gaming industry’s protection of gameplay mechanics. It might be a sign that businesses have a harder time asserting ownership of popular gaming systems if Nintendo has trouble enforcing its patents. Developers may feel more comfortable innovating without worrying about similar lawsuits after seeing this case.