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

of the oops dept

The lawsuit by Nintendo and the Pokémon Company in Japan against PocketPair, the makers of the popular game Palworldstill running. As we previously reported, this isn’t the copyright or trademark lawsuit everyone expected Palworld was first released. Instead, Nintendo, probably knowing that they couldn’t get around the idea-expression dichotomy in copyright law, filed a patent application. The referenced patents covered several gameplay mechanics for which there is sufficient prior art in the video game field, such as capturing creatures in a thrown object and the transition of driving creatures or items in an open world. While all this was going on, PocketPair started patching out some of those gameplay mechanics Palworldwhile also seeking to invalidate the patents driving the lawsuit. And most recently, PocketPair pointed out even more examples of the state of the art in other games and game mods for the mechanics Nintendo had managed to patent.

But an important aspect to all of this is that several of the patents at issue in this lawsuit are still in the filing stages. And now there’s one of those patents, which notably sits between two other Nintendo mechanical patents rejected as unoriginal.

Nintendo is happening 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 and is currently pending in the Tokyo District Court, has been rejected by the Japan Patent Office (JPO).

The decision speaks of a lack of inventiveness, which points directly to older games such as ARK, Monster hunter 4, CraftopiaKantai Collection and Pokémon GO itself as examples of the state of the art.

I can’t read Japanese writing, but here’s a visual representation of how these patents are connected. 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 applied in court against PocketPair.

The recently rejected application 2024-031879 stems from Nintendo’s 2023 application (JP7505852), which has already been granted and is one of the patents cited in Nintendo’s lawsuit against Pocketpair. Meanwhile, patent 2024-123560 (JP7545191) is branching out, while another issued patent is also being used in court.

That means this isn’t an irrelevant afterthought; it’s literally sandwiched between two patents at the center of the lawsuit. If the JPO finds that one member of the patent family is not original, it raises questions about the others.

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

As far as the lawsuit goes, this could be a big deal. As Windows Central notes, the same logic the JPO used to dismiss this particular patent can easily be applied to the two granted patents at the center of the lawsuit. Combine all that with the prior art used to dismiss this patent, and you have a solid defense in court against patent infringement and, in my opinion, 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. If the Japanese patent authority says otherwise, that argument will quickly lose credibility.

The ruling also puts pressure on Nintendo’s third patent-in-suit, which according to previous reports it has already changed in the middle of the lawsuit. A sign that Nintendo is getting desperate.

We’ll see if Nintendo tries to change these patents or appeal JPO’s decision. I imagine that will be the case, given how desperately she has behaved at almost every stage of this trial.

But my bigger question for Nintendo is simple: is this really worth it? Palworld still exists, and I haven’t seen any evidence that the Pokémon franchise is experiencing a sudden loss of revenue or value. What are we achieving here, other than digging in our heels and refusing to back down?

Filed Under: Japan, originality, palworld, patents, Pokemon

Companies: Nintendo, Pocketpair, Pokemon Company