Last week, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company announced that they were filing a patent infringement lawsuit The fading world developer Pocketpair. While the latter studio claimed it was “unaware of the specific patents we’ve been accused of infringing,” internet speculation soon began tossing out various filings that sound plausible from Nintendo’s back catalog.
While there’s still no official word on which designs are relevant to this case, MBHB law firm associate Andrew Velzen noted (via GamesIndustry.biz) that some apparently key patents were actually filed after Palworld’s release suggests that Nintendo has been pursuing a lawsuit for some time.
Velzen points out four specific Japanese patents (out of 28 proposed by the patent attorney for Automatic media) that he believes are key to Nintendo’s infringement argument. They seem to cover big topics like capturing and riding various characters, and importantly, they were all sent after Palworld was released.
The filing process for each of these Japanese designs has been expedited through what Velzen calls “expedited examination procedures,” meaning the patents could hold water sooner and, potentially, be used in a legal environment.
Each was filed as a section of Nintendo’s existing patents, derived from a “parent patent” that the company had already claimed as its own. In this case, the “parent” was filed in December 2021 and is legally viable for use against Palworld (according to Automaton Media).
Four apparently matching patents have been filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (making them legal in North America as well as Japan) and while two of them were filed in September 2022 — before Palworld — the other two first appeared in May 2024, after Palworld’s release.
These two independent patent applications (US App. No. 18/652,874 and App. No. 18/652,883) read as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program that, when executed by a computer or information processing device, causes the computer to perform operations that include: based on a direction input received, determining an aiming direction in virtual space; and in the first mode, causing the player character to launch, in the targeting direction, a capture object to capture a character in a field located on a field in the virtual space, based on an operation input, and when the launched capture object hits the character field, performing a successful capture determination regarding whether the capture is successful or not; and when the result of determining a successful capture is positive, placing the field character hit by the capture object in the player’s possession, and in another way, causing the player character to launch, in the direction of the target, the combat character, and causing the field character and the combat character to start facing each other fight on the field.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program that causes the computer or information processing device to provide execution that includes: controlling a player character in a virtual space based on a first operation input; in connection with selecting, based on a select operation, a boarding object on which the player character can be boarded and providing boarding instructions, causing the player character to board the boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move, wherein the boarding object is selected from a number of object types that the player owns; together with providing a second operation input when the player character is airborne, causing the player character to board the airborne object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move in the air; and while the player character is on the air boarding object, moving the player character, on the air boarding object, in the air based on the third input of the operation.
There’s a lot of talk about legal patents, but the former seems to be directly related to catch/release mechanics, while the latter is more about riding on the ground or creatures in the air.
Like the Japanese examples, these two US patents were filed with a ‘Track One’ claim, which similarly expedited the examination process.
Now, without any official confirmation, we can’t know for sure if these designs will play a role in the lawsuit against Palworld, or if they were submitted with the sole intention of getting even with Pocketpair. That said, since some of them were filed after the release of Palworld and their relevance to mechanics like Pokéballs/Pal Spheres and riding on Pokémon/Pals, it seems to suggest that Nintendo was up to something.
Velzen notes that both of the above patents have yet to be approved by the United States Patent and Trademark Office — the first was rejected for “lack of subject matter suitability” and the second for “obviousness.” Nintendo now has until October 19th and 31st to amend both (or challenge the rejections). If the company is successful in getting both of them over the line, it is likely to play a role in the case against Pocketpair.
Looking at these filings, it seems that Nintendo has been preparing its argument for some time. Game analyst Serkan Toto recently claimed (via 404 Media) that he’s sure Nintendo will win the lawsuit, while others like a business lawyer Richard Hoeg suggested the company “may be catching up.”
Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit already appears to be affecting Pocketpair. Just this week, Palworld’s PS5 release has been halted in certain countries, and while no specific reason has been given for the delay, it certainly seems pretty sad to us.
