The ongoing legal confrontation between Nintendo, The Pokémon Company, and Pocketpair—the developer behind the viral survival hit Palworld—has taken an unexpectedly theatrical turn within the halls of the Japan Patent Office (JPO). Recent filings reveal a rare and "sharp-tongued" exchange between the gaming giant and patent examiners, centering on the fundamental question of what constitutes an "inventive step" in video game mechanics.
At the heart of this specific skirmish is Patent Publication No. 2026-077713, a filing that describes a system for capturing monsters in a virtual environment. While Nintendo seeks to solidify its intellectual property (IP) fortress, the JPO has pushed back with a level of dismissive irony seldom seen in standard bureaucratic practice, citing a decade-old indie fan project as proof that Nintendo’s "invention" may not be as novel as it claims.
Main Facts: The Battle Over the ‘Poke Ball’ Patent
The dispute involves a specific patent application within a larger "family" of patents that Nintendo is leveraging in its infringement lawsuit against Pocketpair. The JPO initially rejected the application, arguing that the mechanics described—selecting an item, aiming it at a creature, and capturing said creature upon a successful hit—lacked the necessary "inventive step" required for a new patent.
To justify this rejection, the JPO cited a YouTube video from 2011 featuring Pokémon: Generations, an unofficial, fan-made 3D indie game. The examiner noted that the gameplay in this 13-year-old video essentially demonstrated the same "innovation" Nintendo was currently trying to protect: a player character (Ash) throwing a spherical object (a Poke Ball) at a yellow monster (Pikachu) to capture it.
Nintendo’s legal team responded with uncharacteristic indignation, accusing the JPO of acting "extremely inappropriately" by using a copyright-infringing work as a benchmark for prior art. This sparked a rebuttal from the JPO that has stunned legal experts in Japan for its bluntness, with the Office essentially telling Nintendo that if they wanted to be pedantic about copyright, the JPO could describe the scene using generic, cumbersome terminology—yet the logical grounds for rejection would remain identical.
Chronology: From ‘Pokémon with Guns’ to the Patent Office Standoff
The path to this bureaucratic showdown began in early 2024 and has escalated into a landmark case for the gaming industry.
- January 19, 2024: Palworld launches in Early Access. It becomes an overnight sensation, selling millions of copies while earning the colloquial nickname "Pokémon with guns" due to its creature designs and capturing mechanics.
- September 18, 2024: After months of silence, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company officially file a patent infringement lawsuit against Pocketpair in the Tokyo District Court, seeking an injunction and damages.
- November 8, 2024: Pocketpair breaks its silence on the specifics of the suit, revealing that Nintendo is targeting three specific patents (Nos. 7545191, 7493117, and 7528390). Crucially, these patents were applied for after Palworld was released, though they are "divisional patents" linked to older filings dating back to 2021.
- Late 2024: During the prosecution of a related patent (No. 2026-077713), the JPO issues its rejection based on the Pokémon: Generations video.
- Present: Nintendo files a petition against the rejection. The JPO’s website currently lists the status of Patent Publication No. 2026-077713 as "rejection decision under review," indicating that the tug-of-war is far from over.
Supporting Data: The ‘Divisional Patent’ Strategy
To understand why this rejection is significant, one must understand Nintendo’s legal strategy. Nintendo is utilizing "divisional patents," a tactic where a company takes a broad, existing patent application and splits it into smaller, more specific ones.
The patents Nintendo is using against Palworld were granted in the summer of 2024, but they "inherit" the priority date of a parent application filed in December 2021 (the Pokémon Legends: Arceus era). This allows Nintendo to sue Palworld for infringing on "new" patents that legally count as having existed before Palworld was even announced.
The Role of ‘Prior Art’
In patent law, "prior art" is any evidence that an invention was already known or available to the public before the patent was filed. If a mechanic is already in the public domain, it cannot be patented because it lacks an "inventive step."
By citing Pokémon: Generations, the JPO is arguing that the 3D aiming and catching mechanic was "publicly known" as early as 2011. While Pokémon: Generations was an unlicensed fan game, patent law generally doesn’t care if the prior art is legal or authorized—only that it existed and was visible to the public.
Official Responses: A "Sharp-Tongued" Exchange
The dialogue between Nintendo’s attorneys and the JPO examiners has become a focal point for Japanese patent attorney Kiyoshi Kurihara, who noted that the language used by the JPO was "rarely seen."
Nintendo’s Objection
Nintendo’s counterargument focused on the illegitimacy of the source. They argued:
"The Office acted extremely inappropriately by citing a gameplay video of a game that clearly infringes on our copyrights as a reason to deny a patent that protects our technical innovations."
The JPO’s Rebuttal
The Patent Office’s response was effectively a legal "clapback." They argued that the copyright status of the video had "no bearing on determining the inventive step." They further mocked Nintendo’s insistence on "accuracy" regarding their IP:
"If accuracy should take precedence… the notice would need to use cumbersome descriptions such as ‘an object in the form of a small animal’ instead of Pokémon, ‘an object in the form of a boy wearing a red cap’ instead of Ash, ‘an object in the form of a small yellow animal’ instead of Pikachu… and ‘a spherical object with a red upper half and a white lower half’ instead of Poke Ball."
The JPO concluded that even if they stripped away the "Pokémon" names and used these generic descriptions, the underlying technology (the "logical structure") remained unpatentable because it had been demonstrated by the public over a decade ago.
Implications: What This Means for Palworld and the Industry
The rejection of Patent No. 2026-077713 is not a "silver bullet" for Pocketpair, but it provides a significant psychological and strategic boost.
1. Weakening the "Inventive Step" Argument
If the JPO continues to maintain that 3D monster-capturing is a "natural evolution" of gameplay rather than a unique invention, Nintendo’s broader lawsuit against Palworld may struggle. The Tokyo District Court will have to decide if Pocketpair’s mechanics are truly infringing on a "protected invention" or simply using a genre-standard gameplay loop that Nintendo is trying to monopolize retroactively.
2. The Danger of "Patent Trolling" by Giants
Critics of Nintendo’s move argue that the company is engaging in a form of aggressive litigation designed to stifle competition. By filing divisional patents after a competitor finds success, Nintendo is perceived by some as moving the goalposts. The JPO’s resistance suggests that even state regulators are wary of allowing companies to claim ownership over basic interactive concepts (like "throwing an item at a target").
3. The Legacy of Fan Games
Ironically, the very fan games that Nintendo has spent decades shutting down may be the key to defeating their patents. Pokémon: Generations was a project born out of love for the franchise, yet its existence as a public record of 3D gameplay now serves as a defensive shield for a rival commercial product. The comments on the 13-year-old YouTube video—"You saved Palworld"—highlight a community sentiment that Nintendo’s litigiousness has finally met an immovable object.
4. Financial and Structural Risks for Pocketpair
Despite the JPO’s sass, Nintendo remains a formidable opponent. The lawsuit seeks 5 million yen (plus late fees) for both The Pokémon Company and Nintendo—a relatively small sum—but the real threat is the injunction. If Nintendo wins, they could force Pocketpair to change fundamental mechanics of Palworld or, in a worst-case scenario, cease its distribution in Japan.
Conclusion
The "rejection under review" status of the capturing patent indicates that the legal machinery is still grinding. However, the JPO’s willingness to openly mock Nintendo’s arguments suggests a growing friction between the company’s desire for total IP control and the regulatory reality of what constitutes "innovation" in the modern age. As the Palworld lawsuit moves forward, the industry will be watching closely to see if "an object in the form of a boy wearing a red cap" becomes the unlikely hero that preserves the freedom of the monster-collecting genre.
