Japan Patent Office Rejects Key Patent Application In Nintendo’s ‘Palworld’ Lawsuit

from the oops dept

Nintendo and the Pokémon Company’s lawsuit in Japan against PocketPair, makers of the hit game Palworld, is still ongoing. As we’ve reported previously, this isn’t the copyright or trademark lawsuit that everyone expected when Palworld was first released. Instead, probably knowing that they couldn’t get around the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright, at least, Nintendo filed a patent suit instead. The patents referenced covered several different gameplay mechanics for which there is plenty of prior art in video gaming, such as capturing creatures in a thrown object and transitioning from riding creatures or items in an open world setting. As this was all going on, PocketPair began both patching out some of those gameplay mechanics from Palworld, while also trying to invalidate the patents powering the lawsuit. And, most recently, PocketPair pointed to even more examples of prior art in other games and game mods for the very mechanics Nintendo had managed to patent.

But one key aspect in all of this is that several of the patents featured in this lawsuit are still in the application stage. And now one of those patents, which notably sits in between two other mechanic patents of Nintendo’s, has been rejected as unoriginal.

Nintendo’s ongoing legal campaign against Palworld developer Pocketpair has hit another roadblock. A key patent in Nintendo’s “monster capture” family, one that sits right between two patents, currently being asserted in the Tokyo District Court, has been rejected by the Japan Patent Office (JPO).

The decision cites a lack of inventive step, pointing directly to older games such as ARK, Monster Hunter 4, Craftopia, Kantai Collection, and Pokémon GO itself as examples of prior art.

I cannot read Japanese script, but here is a visual representation of how interrelated these patents are. The one in the red box was the applied for patent that was rejected. The two on either side of the equation are the already granted patents that are being wielded in court against PocketPair.

The newly rejected 2024-031879 application descends from Nintendo’s 2023 filing (JP7505852), which has already been granted and is one of the patents cited in Nintendo’s lawsuit against Pocketpair. Meanwhile, patent 2024-123560 (JP7545191) branches off, another granted patent also being used in court.

That means this isn’t some irrelevant side filing; it’s literally sandwiched between two patents central to the litigation. If the JPO finds that one member of the patent family lacks originality, it raises questions about the others.

As GamesFray notes, this “sibling-parent” structure makes the 2024-031879 rejection potentially significant. The same reasoning (lack of inventive step, obviousness based on prior art) could easily apply to the related patents Nintendo is wielding in court.

As far as the lawsuit is concerned, this could be a big freaking deal. As Windows Central notes, the same logic the JPO used to reject this specific patent can easily be applied to the two granted patents central to the suit. Combine all of that with the prior art used to reject this patent and you have a solid defense in court against patent infringement and, I would say likely, the invalidation of Nintendo’s existing patents.

In this case, the rejection undermines Nintendo’s claim that its patents protect truly original gameplay ideas. When Japan’s own patent authority says otherwise, that argument loses credibility fast.

The ruling also puts pressure on Nintendo’s third patent-in-suit, which, according to previous reports, has already been modified mid-litigation. A sign that Nintendo is getting desperate.

We’ll see if Nintendo attempts to amend these patents or appeal JPO’s decision. I imagine it will, given how desperate it has behaved at pretty much every turn in this lawsuit.

But my larger question for Nintendo is a simple one: is this really worth it? Palworld still exists and I haven’t seen any evidence that the Pokémon franchise is suddenly suffering a loss of revenue or worth. So other than the digging in of heels and refusing to back down, what are we accomplishing here?

Filed Under: japan, originality, palworld, patents, pokemon

Companies: nintendo, pocketpair, pokemon company