The gaming world has been watching as Nintendo and The Pokémon Company wage a controversial legal battle against Palworld developer, Pocketpair. What started as a joke about Pocketpair’s game featuring “Pokémon with guns” has escalated into a serious discussion about the future of game development—and a recent decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) to reexamine one of Nintendo’s key patents indicates government regulators are tuning in.
What Nintendo Is Trying to Patent
At the heart of this controversy is U.S. Patent No. 12,403,397 (the “397 Patent”), which covers summoning a sub-character and allowing it to fight a non-player character (“NPC”). More specifically, the patent describes controlling a player character in a field, causing a sub-character to appear, controlling a battle in manual mode when an enemy is present, and automatically moving the sub-character and controlling a battle in automatic mode when no enemy is present.
The mechanic is most recognizable from Pokémon Scarlet and Violet’s “Let’s Go” mode, where players could summon a Pokémon on the map to automatically engage in battle for them. To many fans and industry insiders, this resembles countless existing video games—which is precisely the issue.
The Palworld Connection
When Palworld launched in January 2024, its similarities to Pokémon were immediately apparent. However, Nintendo waited until September 2024 to file a lawsuit—not for copyright infringement over similar designs (many of which, to Nintendo’s credit, are near clones of recognizable Pokémon), but for patent violation.
The lawsuit cited three patents, all filed in 2024 after Palworld had been released, though they were derived from earlier Nintendo patents dating back to 2021. The patents cover throwing objects to initiate capture, capturing creatures in the wild, and transitioning onto rideable creatures in open worlds.
Why the Gaming Industry Is Alarmed
Swift backlash has come from multiple fronts, including gamers, developers, and IP experts alike. Michael Douse, Director of Publishing at Larian Studios (developers of Baldur’s Gate 3), stated that “these types of patents are too often used in bad faith.” His concern reflects broader anxiety in the development community: If Nintendo can patent basic summoning mechanics, what other fundamental gaming concepts might be locked behind ex post facto IP rights?
IP expert, Florian Mueller said Nintendo “should never” have received the 397 Patent, while video game patent lawyer Kirk Sigmon opined, “these claims were in no way allowable.”
The concern centers on whether the patent describes a truly novel invention or merely a basic concept implemented in a game.
Patent Office Push Back
USPTO Director John A. Squires has ordered a reexamination of the 397 Patent, pointing to two older patent applications—one filed by Konami in 2002, the other by Nintendo itself in 2019—as prior art that raises substantial new questions of patentability.
According to Florian Mueller, such reexamination orders are “pretty rare,” and Mueller attributes the order to “public outrage” over the patent’s approval and concerns about the U.S. patent system’s reputation. While the order doesn’t automatically revoke the patent, Mueller considers it “highly likely” that the USPTO will ultimately revoke it.
The Japan Patent Office rejected one of Nintendo’s patent applications for lacking sufficient “inventive step,” citing older games including ARK: Survival Evolved (2015), Monster Hunter 4 (2013), Pokémon Go (2016), and Pocketpair’s own earlier game Craftopia (2020).
The fact that the patent offices in multiple countries question the originality of these mechanics could signal weakness in Nintendo’s IP strategy.
Why This Matters
Critics argue that developers shouldn’t be able to patent mechanics, noting that the entire gaming industry is built on iterations of what came before. If broad patents on gameplay concepts are enforced, it could chill innovation, increase development costs for smaller studios, and give disproportionate power to companies with large patent portfolios.
Pocketpair has already made changes to Palworld in response to the lawsuit, removing the ability to summon Pals (Palworld’s version of Pokémon) by throwing Pal Spheres (Palworld’s version of Pokéballs—they now simply materialize) and changing how the gliding mechanic works—demonstrating real effects on game design even before any final judgment.
Cautious Optimism
The USPTO has approximately two months to complete its reexamination, with results expected in January 2026. During this time, other companies are free to challenge the patent’s merits as well.
With one patent already rejected by the JPO and growing skepticism around Nintendo’s legal strategy, IP expert Florian Mueller has stated that “it is ever more likely that Nintendo will lose.”
The USPTO’s willingness to reexamine this patent suggests at least some recognition that there’s a difference between protecting specific innovations and claiming ownership over fundamental concepts that represent the common language of game design. The next few months will reveal whether the patent system is willing to course-correct on what many see as a significant overreach—one that could affect how games are developed for years to come.
