In a rare and significant development, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has ordered a director-level reexamination of Nintendo’s controversial Pokémon summoning patent—the centerpiece of its lawsuit against indie hit Palworld. This extraordinary intervention, the first of its kind in over a decade, signals potential trouble for Nintendo’s legal strategy and raises fundamental questions about video game patent validity that could reshape the industry.
Table of Contents
Nintendo: Pokemon Patent That Started It All
Patent number 12,403,397, granted to Nintendo in September 2025, claims ownership over mechanics allowing players to summon creatures and engage them in combat—systems that have existed in gaming for decades. The patent became Nintendo’s primary weapon in its ongoing legal battle against Pocketpair, developers of Palworld, the survival crafting game that became a phenomenon with 5 million copies sold in just three days.
When the patent was initially approved, IP lawyer Kirk Sigmon called it “an embarrassing failure of the US patent system,” arguing that such broad gameplay mechanics should never have been patented. Now, USPTO Director John Squires has taken the unusual step of directly ordering reexamination, citing prior art from Konami (2002) and even Nintendo’s own earlier patents (2020).
Patent Battle Timeline
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| January 2024 | Palworld launches | Becomes instant hit, selling 5M+ copies |
| September 2024 | Nintendo files lawsuit | Targets patent infringement, not copyright |
| September 2025 | Patent 12,403,397 granted | USPTO approves controversial summoning patent |
| November 2025 | USPTO orders reexamination | Director cites prior art, questions validity |
| November 2025 | Japan Patent Office rejection | Separate patent rejected for lack of originality |
Why This USPTO Review Matters
Director-initiated reexaminations are exceptionally rare—the last one occurred over a decade ago. When patent office leadership personally intervenes, it typically signals serious concerns about patent validity. Patent analyst Florian Mueller suggests it’s “highly likely” the USPTO will revoke the patent, though reexamination doesn’t guarantee revocation.
The Japan Patent Office recently dealt Nintendo another blow, rejecting a related patent application for lacking originality. The JPO cited games like ARK: Survival Evolved, Monster Hunter 4, Pocketpair’s own Craftopia, and even Pokémon GO as prior art—demonstrating these mechanics existed long before Nintendo’s patent application.
This dual rejection across jurisdictions strengthens Pocketpair’s defense considerably. While the Japanese court isn’t bound by the JPO decision, having both U.S. and Japanese patent authorities question Nintendo’s claims creates powerful precedent. For context on gaming industry patent battles, explore our coverage of companies with most U.S. patents.
Nintendo’s Increasingly Desperate Tactics
Nintendo’s behavior throughout this lawsuit has raised eyebrows among legal experts. In July 2025, the company amended one of its patents mid-lawsuit—an uncommon move that patent analyst Mueller called “bizarre.” The amended patent included unusual language like “even when” clauses, terminology rarely seen in patent law.
Mueller explained: “I’ve been following patent litigation for 15 years and have seen many claims that were amended, but I’ve never seen ‘even when’ or ‘even if’ in a patent claim.” The vague wording appears designed to make the patent harder to invalidate, though it also makes enforcement more difficult.
Meanwhile, Pocketpair has been proactively removing allegedly infringing features from Palworld—including Pal-specific gliding mechanics, on-the-fly mount switching, and throwing Pal Spheres to summon creatures. This makes Palworld a “moving target” that Nintendo struggles to hit with its patents.
The Broader Gaming Industry Stakes
Nintendo’s lawsuit isn’t just about Palworld—it’s about establishing precedent for patenting fundamental gameplay mechanics. If these patents stand, hundreds of games could theoretically face legal challenges. Persona’s demon summoning, countless creature-catching RPGs, and any game featuring mount systems could fall under Nintendo’s patent umbrella.
The lawsuit seeks only 5 million yen (approximately $66,000) in damages from both Nintendo and The Pokémon Company—a remarkably small amount for companies of their size. The real goal appears to be the injunction blocking Palworld’s sale in Japan. This suggests the lawsuit is less about monetary compensation and more about punishing a competitor and establishing patent control over common gaming mechanics.
For Indian gaming enthusiasts following this case, understanding gaming industry dynamics is crucial. TechnoSports covers the latest in gaming news and industry developments that shape what games we play and how they’re made.
What Happens Next
Nintendo has two months to respond to the USPTO reexamination order. Given the prior art citations from both Konami and Nintendo’s own earlier work, the company faces an uphill battle defending the patent’s validity. If the USPTO revokes the patent, Nintendo’s U.S. legal strategy crumbles entirely.
The Japanese lawsuit continues independently, with no verdict expected this calendar year. However, the mounting rejections from both U.S. and Japanese patent offices strengthen Pocketpair’s position considerably. Patent experts increasingly believe Palworld will emerge victorious when the court finally rules.
This case demonstrates the fragility of overbroad game patents and may discourage similar patent trolling in the future. If Nintendo can’t defend patents on mechanics as fundamental as creature summoning, it sends a clear message: you can’t monopolize basic gameplay concepts that have existed across the industry for decades.
FAQs
Q: Could this patent rejection affect other Nintendo patents on Pokémon mechanics?
Yes, the USPTO reexamination creates significant ripple effects. Patent families are interconnected—if a central patent is invalidated, related patents face increased scrutiny. The rejected patent sits between two other Nintendo patents currently asserted in the Tokyo lawsuit, potentially undermining their validity. Additionally, the Japan Patent Office’s rejection cited games like Monster Hunter, ARK, and even Pokémon GO as prior art, demonstrating these mechanics weren’t original innovations. This precedent could be used to challenge Nintendo’s entire patent family around creature-catching and combat mechanics, potentially affecting hundreds of patents Nintendo holds on basic gameplay systems.
Q: What does this mean for other indie developers creating monster-taming games?
If the USPTO revokes Nintendo’s patent and Palworld wins its lawsuit, it establishes crucial precedent protecting indie developers. It would confirm that common gameplay mechanics—creature summoning, catching, combat systems—cannot be monopolized through patents, even by industry giants. This would free developers to create monster-taming games without fear of Nintendo litigation over fundamental mechanics that have existed industry-wide for decades. However, developers should still exercise caution with character designs and avoid direct copying of Pokémon aesthetics, as copyright and trademark protections remain separate from patents. The key takeaway: gameplay ideas and mechanics should remain free for all developers to implement and iterate upon, preserving innovation and competition in gaming.
