# The Palworld Legal Battle: How Design Restrictions Could Shape the Game’s Future
The ongoing legal dispute between Nintendo and Pocketpair over Palworld has become one of the most significant intellectual property battles in gaming history. What started as a patent infringement lawsuit has evolved into a complex legal situation that could fundamentally change how Palworld plays and feels to millions of gamers worldwide. Legal experts are now suggesting that even if Pocketpair doesn’t lose the case outright, the company may face design restrictions that would alter core gameplay mechanics.
## Understanding the Core of the Dispute
Nintendo and The Pokemon Company filed their lawsuit against Pocketpair claiming that Palworld violates three patents tied to familiar monster-catching mechanics. The patents cover features like using a capsule-like object to capture creatures, summoning those creatures to fight alongside the player, and the ability to glide using flying creatures. These aren’t just minor gameplay elements—they’re fundamental to how Palworld works and what makes it appealing to players.
The most controversial patent at the center of this dispute is Nintendo’s U.S. Patent No. 12,403,397, which covers the concept of summoning a sub-character to let it fight. This patent was previously granted without any objection, but recent developments have cast serious doubt on its validity. The U.S. Patent Office boss John Squires has ordered a reexamination of this patent, pointing to two previous patents from Konami in 2002 and Nintendo itself in 2019 which may be viewed as prior art references. Squires stated that both are important in deciding whether the claims are patentable and that each raises a substantial new question of patentability.
## The Pattern of Design Changes Already Underway
Pocketpair has already begun making significant changes to Palworld in response to Nintendo’s legal claims, and these changes provide a clear window into what design restrictions might look like if the case doesn’t go in Pocketpair’s favor.
In November 2024, Pocketpair released a patch that removed the ability to summon Pals by throwing a Pal Sphere. Instead of launching a ball to summon creatures, Pals now appear beside the player when summoned. This change was widely seen as a direct response to Nintendo’s legal claims about the capsule-summoning mechanic. The modification fundamentally altered how players interact with their creatures during gameplay.
Another major update came in May 2025, when Pocketpair altered how gliding works in the game. Before the patch, players could summon a flying Pal mid-air to catch them and glide to safety. This was an elegant and fun mechanic that gave flying creatures a practical purpose beyond combat. After the update, players were required to equip a separate glider item, and Pals now only provide passive buffs to support the glide. These design changes weakened some of the game’s charm and added friction to movement and combat flow.
Pocketpair openly acknowledged that these changes were made because of the ongoing legal battle. The studio said it was disappointed but had to make adjustments to avoid further disruptions to development and distribution. Legal experts confirmed that these updates are part of a standard legal strategy: deny infringement, challenge the validity of the patents, and redesign the product to avoid further risk.
## What Legal Experts Are Saying About Design Restrictions
Legal experts have been analyzing this case closely, and many believe that design restrictions represent a likely outcome regardless of how the patent validity questions are ultimately resolved. The reasoning is straightforward: even if some of Nintendo’s patents are found to be invalid or if Pocketpair successfully argues that they don’t infringe, the legal costs and uncertainty could push Pocketpair toward accepting design restrictions as a compromise.
IP expert Florian Mueller has been particularly vocal about the weakening position of Nintendo’s patents. Mueller points out that the reexamination of Nintendo’s summon patent further undermines the credibility of Nintendo’s patent assertions against Palworld. Mueller notes that this is now the second case in as many weeks where a patent or patent application related to the patents Nintendo is asserting against Palworld is viewed skeptically by one of the world’s top four patent offices.
The Japan Patent Office rejected one of Nintendo’s patent applications relevant to the Palworld dispute, citing games like ARK as prior art after a third-party submission. This rejection came after an April 9, 2025 notification of submission of publications and an October 22, 2025 notice of refusal. The fact that multiple patent offices are finding problems with Nintendo’s patents suggests that the legal landscape is shifting against the gaming giant.
However, even with these setbacks for Nintendo, legal experts suggest that Pocketpair may still face pressure to implement design restrictions. The reason is that patent litigation is expensive and unpredictable. Even if Pocketpair believes it will ultimately win, the company may decide that accepting design restrictions is preferable to years of legal battles, appeals, and the uncertainty that comes with patent cases.
## The Broader Implications for Game Design
What makes this case particularly significant is that it raises fundamental questions about what game mechanics can be patented and protected. If design restrictions become the outcome, it would set a precedent that could affect how other game developers approach monster-catching games, creature-summoning mechanics, and other gameplay systems that might overlap with existing patents.
The changes Pocketpair has already made show that design restrictions don’t necessarily kill a game, but they do change its character. The removal of the throwing mechanic for summoning creatures and the alteration of gliding mechanics have been described as weakening the game’s charm and adding friction to gameplay. These aren’t game-breaking changes, but they do make the experience less smooth and less intuitive than it was originally designed to be.
Game designers have long worried about patent thickets in the industry—situations where so many patents exist that it becomes nearly impossible to create a game without potentially infringing on something. The Palworld case is bringing these concerns to the forefront of industry discussion. If design restrictions become a common outcome in patent disputes, it could lead to more homogenized game design as developers avoid mechanics that might be patented.
## The Timeline and What Comes Next
Decisions in the Palworld case will likely be made in 2026, particularly by Presiding Judge Motoyuki Nakashima, who leads the patent division of the Tokyo District Court. Nintendo has two months to respond to the U.S. Patent Office’s order for reexamination of patent 12,403,397. The Japanese Patent Office has already rejected one application, and the U.S. Patent Office is now questioning another.
The reexamination doesn’t immediately mean that Nintendo’s patents are being revoked, although it could lead to that outcome. Mueller believes that the rejection of Nintendo’s patent is now highly likely
