Nintendo’s ongoing lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair represents a significant turning point in how video game companies might approach intellectual property protection in the future, particularly when it comes to creature-based games. The case, which began with a joint filing by Nintendo and The Pokemon Company on September 19, 2024, has already started to reshape conversations about what game mechanics can and cannot be protected through patents.[1][2]
The lawsuit centers on three specific patents that Nintendo claims Palworld infringes upon. These patents cover gameplay mechanics like using capsule-style items to catch creatures, targeting those items during gameplay, and riding creatures through the game world.[2] What makes this case particularly noteworthy is that Nintendo chose to pursue patent infringement claims rather than copyright or trademark violations. This strategic decision signals that Nintendo views its patent portfolio as a powerful tool for controlling not just the visual appearance of games, but the fundamental mechanics that make them work.
The timing of Nintendo’s patent filings has raised eyebrows throughout the gaming industry. All three patents that form the basis of the lawsuit were filed after Palworld had already been released in Early Access in January 2024.[2] These divisional patents were based on a broader parent patent from 2021, but the fact that Nintendo created these specific patent applications only after seeing Palworld’s commercial success suggests the company was directly responding to the game’s popularity rather than protecting inventions that had been in development for years.
This approach has significant implications for how future creature-based games might be developed. If Nintendo succeeds in this lawsuit, it would establish a precedent that basic gameplay mechanics like creature capture systems can be protected through patents. This could mean that any developer wanting to create a game featuring creatures that players catch, collect, or ride would need to either license these mechanics from Nintendo or find entirely different ways to implement similar features. The barrier to entry for new creature-based games could become substantially higher, as developers would need to navigate a complex landscape of patent protections.
However, the lawsuit has already encountered serious obstacles that could limit its impact on future game development. In late October 2025, Japan’s Patent Office rejected one of Nintendo’s patent applications, specifically application number 2024-031879, which is directly related to the family of creature-capture patents that Palworld is accused of infringing.[1] The patent examiner found that the application lacked originality and therefore could not be considered a valid invention. The examiner cited prior art including Monster Hunter 4, ARK: Survival Evolved, the gacha browser game Kantai Collection, Pocketpair’s own game Craftopia, and even Pokemon GO. All of these games were released before the December 2021 priority date of the rejected application.[1]
This rejection is particularly damaging to Nintendo’s case because it suggests that the creature-capture mechanics Nintendo is trying to protect may not actually be original inventions. If the patent office has determined that these mechanics existed in prior games, then Nintendo’s claim that Palworld is infringing on their unique inventions becomes much weaker. The decision raises fundamental questions about whether Nintendo can legitimately claim ownership over gameplay systems that have been used in various forms across multiple games for years.
The situation has become even more complicated because Nintendo is also dealing with challenges to another patent central to the lawsuit. The ride-switching system implementation patent, identified as JP7528390, is facing trouble after Nintendo attempted to amend it in the middle of the lawsuit back in July 2025.[1] Amending a patent during active litigation is highly unusual, and the vague language used in the proposed amendment raised concerns about the validity of the patent itself. This amendment request delayed proceedings and required parts of the case to be reexamined, with the lawsuit now expected to extend well into 2026.[1]
The broader implications of this lawsuit for future creature-based game development depend heavily on how the Tokyo District Court ultimately rules. If Nintendo loses or if the court finds that the patents are not as strong as the company claims, it could actually open the door for more creature-based games to be developed without fear of patent infringement lawsuits. Developers would feel more confident creating games with similar mechanics, knowing that Nintendo’s patent protections have been weakened or invalidated.
On the other hand, if Nintendo manages to win the case despite the patent office’s rejection and the amendments issues, it would send a powerful message to the gaming industry. Other large game companies might follow Nintendo’s lead and begin filing patents for basic gameplay mechanics, creating a more restrictive environment for independent developers and smaller studios. The cost of developing creature-based games could increase significantly as developers would need to either license mechanics from established companies or invest heavily in legal research to ensure they are not infringing on existing patents.
The current state of the lawsuit also reveals something important about how Nintendo views its intellectual property. By choosing to pursue patent claims rather than copyright or trademark violations, Nintendo has essentially acknowledged that Palworld’s creatures and visual design are different enough from Pokemon that a copyright case would be difficult to win. Instead, the company is arguing that the underlying game mechanics themselves are protected intellectual property. This approach, while potentially powerful, is also controversial because it suggests that Nintendo is trying to monopolize basic gameplay systems that many developers might want to use.
The gaming industry is watching this case closely because the outcome could establish precedent for how patents are applied to video game mechanics. If courts determine that basic systems like creature capture can be patented and protected, it could lead to a fragmented landscape where different companies control different types of gameplay mechanics. This could make it harder for new developers to create games in popular genres without navigating a complex web of patent licenses and restrictions.
The rejection of Nintendo’s patent application by Japan’s Patent Office in October 2025 has already started to influence how people think about this case. Many observers in the gaming community have pointed out that if the patent office itself has determined that creature-capture mechanics are not original inventions, then Nintendo’s lawsuit may be built on a weak foundation. This could discourage other companies from attempting similar patent-based lawsuits against games with comparable mechanics, at least until the Palworld case is resolved and courts have had a chance to weigh in on the validity of Nintendo’s patents.
Looking forward, the resolution of this lawsuit will likely shape how creature-based games are developed for years to come. If Nintendo wins, future developers will need to be much more careful about how they implement creature-catching and riding mechanics, potentially leading to more creative and diverse approaches to these systems. If Nintendo loses or if the patents are invalidated, developers will have more freedom to create games with mechanics similar to those found in Pokemon and Palworld, potentially leading to an explosion of new creature-based games in the market.
The case also highlights a broader tension in the video game industry between protecting genuine innovation and preventing companies from using patents as a tool to eliminate competition. Nintendo has a legitimate interest in protecting its intellectual property and the innovations it has developed over decades. However, there is also a concern that using patents to protect basic gameplay mechanics
