Yennifer Young / Windows Central Wrote:With the help of our friends over at GamesFray, we've been following Nintendo's aggressive legal posturing against Palworld creator Pocketpair in both the patent infringement challenge in Japan that's currently ongoing, and what looked to be Nintendo building a patent army in the US in preparation for filing a legal challenge closer to home.

In Nintendo's attempt to 'catch-em-all' and collect a bunch of legal filings specifically designed to trap the Palworld creators in litigation, they got a controversial "summon and fight" patent through the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Essentially, trying to claim ownership over the mechanics of aiming an item, catching a monster, and then summoning it to fight in different modes.

Well... back in November, we reported that the patent in question had been pulled for closer scrutiny by the USPTO, and, officially, Nintendo has now been issued a stinging non-final rejection of the patent. Not just a few parts of it, all 26 of the patent's claims have been rejected. Ouch.

Using Nintendo's own history against them

(Image credit: US Patent Office/GamesFray)

For a patent to actually hold up under scrutiny, it needs to be a genuine leap forward or completely original, not just a remake of things everyone is already doing. You can't just take a standard gameplay mechanic, tweak one UI element, and say the idea now belongs to you.

It’s like when I was a teenager and spent hours sticking gaudy diamantes all over my pink Motorola Razr. It looked different, sure, but I wasn’t exactly calling up the patent office to claim I’d invented a new mobile phone (also I'm pretty sure I stole the idea from Smash Hits magazine).

In this case, the USPTO examiner hasn't even looked at a single video game to prove Nintendo was overreaching. Instead, they've looked at Nintendo's own history. The examiner in this case has dismantled the patent entirely, combining several pieces of paperwork to show that Nintendo wasn't inventing anything new. Again, they have looked to "prior art" in previous filings to prove that Nintendo's so-called invention in this patent was actually just a rehash of what's come before.

The four filings used to discredit Nintendo's claims were:

• Taura - One of Nintendo's own 2019 patents. This patent already covered the core basics of summoning a "sub-character" to fight alongside a player. By using this, the USPTO argued that Nintendo was trying to patent the same idea twice just to make it a more effective weapon.
  
• Yabe - Dating back to the PS2 era, this Konami patent described characters having two distinct battle modes. One where they act on their own (Auto) and one where the player gives direct orders (Manual).
  
• Motokura - Another Nintendo filing from 2020. This one dealt with how characters are positioned and moved within a 3D space during gameplay transitions. It was used to prove that the technical way Palworld handles spawning monsters wasn't a new invention either.
  
• Shimomoto - This 2019 filing from Bandai Namco provided the missing link. it described the specific logic of how a game determines where a summoned character should appear in relation to the player.
  

Disclaimer
Note: All patent links above will take you to GamesFray website where the patent documents are hosted.

In referencing a combination of these patents as a counterargument against the one Nintendo has been trying to secure, the USPTO has essentially told Nintendo they are just describing game mechanics that Konami, Bandai Namco, and even Nintendo themselves have already had on the books for many years prior.

The patent office didn't look at any video games?

One of the most fascincating details from the report is that the examiner reached this conclusions without needing to play Palworld or Pokemon. They've simply said the concept of the summon and fight mechanic itself is unoriginal. This prevents Nintendo from arguing that their specific implementation of the mechanic or how it feels in their game makes it unique from anyone else who uses it.

If the logic was already in a Konami filing from the PS2 era, Nintendo doesn't get to now claim ownership of that in 2026.

So what happens next?

(Image credit: Future (meme using Ace Attorney/Ash))

It's important to note the term "non-final". Nintendo still has a 2-month window to respond, and this period can be extended if Nintendo requests it. Even when the decision is final, it can be appealed, so it really is a case of seeing whether Nintendo will take this lying down. They can still tweak the language of the patent to be more specific. However, the total rejection of all 26 claims here is significant. It's much harder for Nintendo to amend when, normally, at least a few of them would survive.

There's no new news on the Nintendo vs. Pocketpair case taking place in Japan right now, and since that drama kicked off, even more games that bear similarities to Pokémon have been launched or announced (Aniimo, for example).

On the whole, for Palworld fans and indie developers everywhere, this is a massive win. It signals that the big guys can't just claim basic game design concepts and sue anyone who dares use them. Nintendo might be determined, but the USPTO at least isn't interested in helping them preserve a monopoly on throwing stuff to catch monsters and use them in battle.

What do you think? Is Nintendo being reasonably protective of its legacy, or is this just a massive case of salt over other innovations like Palworld? Let us know in the comments!

Dominik Bošnjak - GameRant Wrote:

Nintendo's patent lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair may no longer pose a serious threat to the hit survival crafting game. The shift stems from some recent changes uncovered alongside a tentative resolution date for the anti-Palworld case.

In September 2024, Nintendo and The Pokemon Company sued Pocketpair in Japan, alleging that Palworld infringed on several of their jointly held patents. The companies sought damages and an injunction to prevent further infringement. Pocketpair denied the allegations and challenged the validity of the disputed patents, which covered gameplay systems for capturing virtual creatures and switching rideable mounts mid-use.

The Pokemon Company and Nintendo Reduced Their Palworld Lawsuit Demands

According to new public records uncovered by Games Fray, Nintendo and The Pokemon Company amended the relief they are seeking in conjunction with Pocketpair's alleged patent infringement. The November 2025 changes appear to sharply limit the case's practical reach, narrowing its scope to older versions of the game that predate the late-2024 and mid-2025 Palworld changes made in response to the lawsuit. The lawsuit is effectively falling apart as a result of those amendments.

What Palworld Changed in Response to Nintendo's Patent Complaint

• Nov 30, 2024 (Patch 0.3.11) - The ability to summon owned Pals by throwing Pal Spheres was replaced with a static summon next to the player.
  
• May 08, 2025 (Patch 0.5.5)  - Direct gliding with Pals was replaced with glider-based traversal. Pals in the player’s team still provide passive gliding buffs, but players must now have a glider in their inventory in order to glide.
  

Palworld Lawsuit Gets October 1 Hearing Ahead of November 9 Court Signal

According to patent analyst Florian Mueller, the amended claims leave Nintendo without a path to securing meaningful relief against the current versions of the game on any platform. The lawsuit therefore no longer poses a risk to Palworld's 1.0 release, scheduled for July 10, 2026. The case itself remains ongoing, with its next major step expected on October 1, when the Tokyo District Court is scheduled to hear a presentation of evidence from both parties. The court is then expected to indicate its view on November 9, potentially offering the clearest sign yet of how much of Nintendo's case remains viable, if any.

Nintendo's Portion of the Palworld Lawsuit May Only Be Worth $31,000

As a result of the late 2025 amendments, even an absolute Nintendo victory would now have a limited effect. Nintendo previously demanded ¥5 million (~$31,000) plus late-payment damages over Palworld's alleged patent infringements, with The Pokemon Company seeking the same amount separately. Since the case now appears limited to older versions of the game, there is no longer a path to an injunction with a meaningful real-world impact, leaving the dispute effectively worth ¥10 million plus interest at most. In the worst-case scenario for Nintendo and The Pokemon Company, the court could narrow the scope of the patents at the heart of the complaint, or even invalidate them altogether. That risk may have contributed to the plaintiffs' decision to narrow their infringement allegations, which itself signals they are satisfied with the changes Pocketpair previously made to Palworld.

 
Appeal Options in the Palworld Patent Case
 

If the verdict is unfavorable, Nintendo and The Pokemon Company can appeal the Central District Court's decision to Japan's Intellectual Property High Court. However, an appeal would not restore the reduced scope of the case. "After that first appeal, they could try another, but the Supreme Court of Japan does not have to hear the case," Mueller tells GameRant. Pocketpair will have the same appeal options if it chooses to pursue them after the first-instance verdict.

• PalWorld no longer sports the flashy Pokemon features after the modifications made to later editions of the game.
  
• Nintendo have no legal rights to patents that have been proven to be void in full or even partially with very few additions or modifications that don't change the process in any meaningful, unique way.