Palworld arrived in January 2024 as a phenomenon that caught the gaming world by storm. The game, developed by Pocketpair, became an instant sensation on Steam and Xbox Game Pass, attracting millions of players who were drawn to its unique premise. While it shares many similarities with the beloved Pokémon franchise, Palworld introduced a radical twist that earned it the nickname “Pokémon with Guns.” Instead of using magical abilities or special traits to battle enemies, the creatures in Palworld, called Pals, rely on firearms and weapons to fight. This seemingly innocent gameplay mechanic would soon trigger one of the most significant legal battles in modern gaming history.
Nintendo, the Japanese gaming giant that owns the Pokémon franchise, took notice almost immediately. The company is renowned for its aggressive protection of intellectual property, and Palworld’s similarities to Pokémon were too obvious to ignore. Within days of Palworld’s explosive Early Access launch, The Pokémon Company released a rare public statement. Without naming Palworld directly, the company announced that it had “not granted any permission for the use of Pokémon intellectual property or assets” and was “investigating unauthorized use.” This statement marked the beginning of what would become a complex and ongoing legal battle that has surprised many observers with its unexpected turns.
On September 19, 2024, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company officially filed a lawsuit in Japan against Pocketpair. However, what made this lawsuit unusual was the legal strategy they chose. Rather than pursuing the case through copyright or trademark law, which might seem like the obvious route, Nintendo instead targeted Palworld through patent claims. The company accused Pocketpair of infringing on three specific patents related to gameplay mechanics. This decision was particularly interesting because all three patents were filed after Palworld had already been released. Nintendo based these new filings on a broader “parent” patent from 2021, but the timing and content of the divisional patents led many observers to believe Nintendo was reacting directly to Palworld’s commercial success.
The three patents that Nintendo claimed were being infringed covered features that are central to how Palworld functions. The first patent relates to using a capsule-style item to catch or summon creatures. In Pokémon, this item is called a Poké Ball, while in Palworld, it’s called a Pal Sphere. The second patent covers targeting those items during gameplay, and the third patent relates to riding creatures through the game world. While Palworld uses its own terminology and mechanics, the similarities in function are at the center of Nintendo’s legal case. Nintendo sought damages of 5 million yen, which is approximately 33,000 US dollars, claiming that Pocketpair had violated these patents.
What happened next, however, was not what Nintendo expected. The legal battle has not gone smoothly for the gaming giant. In fact, the company has faced a series of significant setbacks that have undermined its position and raised serious questions about the validity of its patent claims. These setbacks have been so substantial that legal experts and industry observers have begun to suggest that it is increasingly likely that Nintendo will lose this case.
The first major blow came when the Japan Patent Office rejected one of Nintendo’s patent applications. The patent in question, numbered 2024-031879, was rejected for lacking an “inventive step.” In patent terminology, this means that the patent failed to prove that the invention was sufficiently novel or non-obvious compared to existing technology or prior art. The Japan Patent Office cited several examples of games that had already implemented similar mechanics before Nintendo filed its patent applications. These games included ARK, Monster Hunter 4, Craftopia, Kantai Collection, and even Pokémon GO itself. This rejection was particularly embarrassing for Nintendo because it meant that the patent office was essentially saying that the mechanics Nintendo was trying to protect were not actually original inventions.
What made this rejection even more significant was the position of this patent within Nintendo’s patent family tree. The rejected patent application, 2024-031879, was not directly relevant to the Palworld lawsuit itself. However, it was structurally positioned between two other patents that are central to Nintendo’s case. Specifically, it was the child application of one of the patents that Nintendo is asserting in its accusations against Pocketpair, and it was itself the parent application of another patent. This “sibling-parent” structure meant that the rejection of this patent raised serious questions about the validity of the related patents that Nintendo is actually using in court. If the Japan Patent Office found that one member of this patent family lacked originality, it suggested that the same reasoning could easily apply to the other related patents.
The rejected patent application described the implementation of mechanics for aiming and throwing items to capture or battle creatures. Nintendo had claimed that these mechanics, which were used in the 2023 game Pokémon Legends: Arceus, constituted a novel invention. According to Nintendo’s argument, the combination of third-person aiming with two different modes to throw items represented something sufficiently new and innovative to deserve patent protection. One mode would affect a target character by stunning it or capturing it, while the other mode would initiate combat against the target character by releasing a creature to battle it. However, the Japan Patent Office disagreed with this assessment, finding that similar mechanics had already been implemented in other games years before Nintendo filed its patent applications.
The setbacks for Nintendo did not stop with the Japan Patent Office rejection. The legal battle took another turn when the United States Patent and Trademark Office became involved. The USPTO’s director, John A. Squires, issued a rare order for an ex parte re-examination of one of Nintendo’s patents, specifically patent number 12,403,397. This patent had come into the spotlight in September and appeared to describe the idea of summoning a character to fight in battle. More specifically, it referred to “sub characters” and described a system that allows these sub characters to fight either manually or automatically, similar to how Pokémon Scarlet and Violet allows players to send their Pokémon out onto the field to attack wild foes independently.
The decision by the USPTO director to order a re-examination of this patent was significant because such orders are relatively rare. In his order, Squires pointed to two other patents as examples of prior art, which in patent law is used to determine the validity of a patent by showing evidence that an invention or idea was already public knowledge before a new filing. This move by the USPTO raised concerns about how broadly Nintendo’s patents could be enforced and how many other games might be affected depending on how these patents are interpreted. It also added weight to the argument that Nintendo’s patents were not as original or innovative as the company claimed.
Legal experts and industry observers have interpreted these setbacks as highly significant for the overall case. One IP expert, Florian Mueller, who is a former consultant for Blizzard Entertainment, stated that the USPTO’s decision to order
