Response to the Palworld lawsuit by Pocketpair revealed!

Pocketpair, the developer behind Palworld, has taken a bold stance in its legal battle against Nintendo and The Pokémon Company. The lawsuit, filed in Japan, accuses Palworld of infringing on patents related to monster-catching gameplay mechanics. Pocket Pair, however, has mounted a defense by citing prior works that utilized similar mechanics, arguing that Nintendo’s patents should not have been granted.

Revealed by Gamesfray, Pokectpair filed back in February its defense that went for two months under the radar and the TLDR is that Nintendo is conveniently pointing finger just for the mere selective pointing.

Pocket Pair’s defense hinges on the concept of “prior art,” which refers to previously existing works that demonstrate the mechanics in question were not novel at the time of Nintendo’s patent applications. The developer has listed several games and mods, including Rune Factory 5, Titanfall 2, Pikmin 3 Deluxe, Far Cry 5, Tomb Raider, and Final Fantasy XIV, as examples of prior art.

They argue that these titles already featured mechanics like releasing monsters or capture items, throwable objects, and targeting systems.

Additionally, Pocket Pair has pointed to its own game, Craftopia, as evidence that similar mechanics were already in use before Palworld. The developer also referenced mods like Pocket Souls for Dark Souls 3 and Nukamon for Fallout, as well as games like Monster Hunter 4G and Octopath Traveler, to bolster its case.

As you recall, the lawsuit was filed last year by Nintendo and instead of going of the aesthetic likeness that some Pals have with Pokémon creatures, had the Japanese veteran going for specific legal term with patents which some of the were granted in middle of the lawsuit’s run, specifically patents: 7,545,191, 7,493,117, and 7,528,390. These patents cover various game mechanics, including the use and activation of “rideable characters” and the process of aiming and throwing a captured item at a character to capture it in a virtual space.

Evidently, U.S. Patent No. 12,179,111 is the American equivalent and consolidated patent of the previous three.

In a first mode, an aiming direction in a virtual space is determined based on a second operation input, and a player character is caused to launch, in the aiming direction, an item that affects a field character disposed on a field in the virtual space, based on a third operation input. In a second mode, the aiming direction is determined, based on the second operation input, and the player character is caused to launch, in the aiming direction, a fighting character that fights, based on the third operation input.

Nintendo and The Pokémon Company are each seeking 5 million yen, plus late payment fees.

This case raises important questions about the balance between intellectual property protection and creative freedom in the gaming industry. While Pocket Pair’s defense challenges the validity of Nintendo’s patents, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future.