The Japanese Patent Office has officially had enough of Nintendo, rejecting a patent attached to the Palworld lawsuit with “rarely seen” sass
Japan's Patent Office has rejected a patent that Nintendo filed describing the mechanics for capturing creatures in games—the fundamental system at the heart of the Pokémon franchise. In its rejection, the Office referenced an unofficial, decade-old fan recreation of Pokémon gameplay as evidence that such a system was already documented prior to Nintendo's filing, finding little reason to regard it as a novel inventive step.
The decision has triggered a dispute between Nintendo and the Patent Office, with the company arguing that it was inappropriate for the Office to base its rejection on a copyright-infringing fan game. Patent professionals have noted that the Office's response contained language and tone that departs significantly from typical patent office communications, suggesting an unusually critical stance on what Nintendo claims should be protectable intellectual property.
In short
- Japan's Patent Office rejected Nintendo's patent for a basic monster-capture system, citing a 13-year-old fan game as prior art
- The rejection used unusually pointed language, prompting Nintendo to claim the Office acted inappropriately by referencing an unlicensed game
- The dispute underscores tension between broad IP protection and preventing patents on obvious, previously-documented mechanics
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The Patent Office's position rests on ensuring the patent system protects only genuinely novel inventions. The creature-capturing mechanic, as evidenced by prior documentation, appears to lack the inventive step required for patent protection. From a public interest standpoint, allowing fundamental game mechanics to be monopolised could unduly restrict competition and stifle innovation in the gaming industry.
The case against
Nintendo contends that patent law requires proper procedural standards, and citing copyright-infringing fan work as prior art represents a fundamental misapplication of legal principles. The Patent Office conflated copyright infringement with legitimate prior art, potentially undermining intellectual property protections for genuine innovators who invest in developing new mechanics. The Office's unusual tone suggests bias rather than neutral, evidence-based judgment.
Explained simply
Pokémon is a game series where players catch, collect and train creatures. The mechanic that lets players capture wild creatures has been fundamental to the franchise's gameplay for decades.
Nintendo filed an application to patent the system for capturing creatures in games. The Japanese Patent Office rejected it, arguing that such a system had already been described in earlier materials, including a fan-made Pokémon recreation that circulated online a decade ago.
Nintendo has disputed this decision, arguing that the Patent Office should not have relied on a fan game created without authorisation to determine whether their invention was genuinely new. The dispute raises broader questions about how patent offices assess what counts as novel technology, and what materials they may legitimately use in such assessments.