Nintendo’s legal challenges against Pocketpair, the developer of Palworld, have encountered a significant setback. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) has rejected one of Nintendo’s key patents, asserting that it lacks originality. This patent falls within Nintendo’s “monster capture” series and was pivotal to their ongoing litigation in the Tokyo District Court.
The JPO Ruling and Its Implications
The JPO’s rejection is primarily based on the patent’s failure to demonstrate an inventive step. The office cited a range of previously established games, including ARK, Monster Hunter 4, and Pokémon GO, as examples of prior art. This decision reinforces Pocketpair’s defense, suggesting that Palworld draws inspiration from established gaming mechanics rather than copying Nintendo’s ideas.
Details of the Patent Rejection
This ruling highlights the intertwined nature of Nintendo’s patent applications. The recently rejected application (2024-031879) is linked between two other patents that have been granted. This connection raises questions about the originality of these related patents, potentially impacting Nintendo’s overall legal strategy.
- Rejected Patent: 2024-031879
- Parent Patent: 2023 filing (JP7505852)
- Sibling Patent: 2024-123560 (JP7545191)
According to insights from Gamesfray, if one patent in this interconnected family lacks originality, the others could be challenged similarly. This potential domino effect could undermine Nintendo’s position in court.
Third-Party Prior Art Submission
Significantly, the JPO’s ruling followed a third-party submission introducing evidence that supported the rejection. While the source of this submission remains unnamed, its timing coincides with Pocketpair’s legal maneuvers, suggesting a strategic defense. Pocketpair’s legal team has documented various games to illustrate that the mechanics claimed by Nintendo have existed prior to Palworld.
Games Cited by Pocketpair
- ARK
- Tomb Raider
- Zelda
- Titanfall 2
- Rune Factory 5
- Player-created mods like Pixelmon and NukaMon
This effort aims to demonstrate that Nintendo’s claims regarding originality are not substantiated. Furthermore, Nintendo had previously argued against considering mods as prior art, a position criticized for limiting what technologies can be recognized as publicly known.
Impact on Ongoing Litigation
The JPO’s decision is not the end of the matter but adds pressure on Nintendo’s case. While judges in the Tokyo District Court are not legally bound by the JPO’s findings, they often give considerable weight to these technical reviews. If Nintendo’s claims continue to falter, this could weaken their overall legal standing against Pocketpair.
Nintendo has a 60-day window from the October 22 notice to respond. They may amend their patent claims or dispute the JPO’s conclusions. Should this approach fail, the company may appeal, potentially extending the litigation into 2026 as the main lawsuit proceeds.
The ongoing developments suggest that Pocketpair’s strategy, focusing on the existence of prior art, is effectively affecting the outcome of this highly visible battle in the gaming industry. As the situation evolves, it may reveal more challenges for Nintendo and shape the future landscape of gaming mechanics.
