Nintendo’s recent setback in Japan—where the Japan Patent Office (JPO) rejected one of its key patent applications related to monster capture mechanics—could significantly weaken its ongoing lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair. The rejected application, numbered 2024-031879, was part of a broader legal strategy by Nintendo and The Pokémon Company to assert intellectual property rights over gameplay systems they claim Palworld infringes upon.
🧠 What Was the Patent About?
The rejected patent was a subclaim within Nintendo’s “monster capture” patent family. Specifically, it attempted to protect a system involving capturing creatures and switching between ridable ones—core mechanics found in both Pokémon and Palworld. However, the JPO ruled that the patent lacked an “inventive step,” meaning it wasn’t sufficiently novel to warrant protection.
The rejection was based on prior art, including gameplay systems from titles like ARK: Survival Evolved, Monster Hunter 4, and other modded experiences. This suggests that similar mechanics had already existed in the public domain before Nintendo’s filing, making their claim legally untenable.
⚖️ How This Impacts the Lawsuit Against Pocketpair
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company filed a joint lawsuit against Pocketpair in the Tokyo District Court, alleging that Palworld infringes on three patents related to creature capture and switching mechanics. The rejected patent wasn’t one of the three directly cited in the lawsuit, but it belonged to the same family and was strategically positioned between two active claims.
This rejection could have several ripple effects:
- Weakening the overall patent family: If one claim is invalidated due to lack of originality, it casts doubt on the novelty and enforceability of adjacent claims.
- Strengthening Pocketpair’s defense: Pocketpair can now argue that Nintendo’s patents are overly broad or based on mechanics that already existed in other games.
- Delaying or derailing the lawsuit: The Tokyo District Court may now scrutinize the remaining patents more rigorously, potentially leading to further rejections or a dismissal of the case.
🧩 Legal and Industry Implications
This case is more than a legal skirmish—it’s a litmus test for how game mechanics can be protected under intellectual property law. Nintendo’s aggressive stance reflects a broader industry trend of legacy companies trying to defend their turf against indie upstarts. But the rejection shows that courts and patent offices are increasingly unwilling to grant monopolies over gameplay systems that have become genre staples.
It also raises questions about Nintendo’s internal strategy. Reports suggest the company may be developing a Pokémon spinoff with Palworld-like elements. If true, this could complicate their legal narrative and expose them to counterclaims of hypocrisy or anti-competitive behavior.
For Pocketpair, this development is a win—but not a final victory. The lawsuit is still active, and Nintendo may appeal the JPO’s decision or pivot to other legal arguments. However, the rejection gives Palworld breathing room and bolsters its position in the court of public opinion.
About The Author
