Nintendo vs. Palworld: The Japan Patent Office Just Delivered a Savage Blow to Nintendo
The ongoing legal war between Nintendo and Pocketpair (the creators of Palworld) has just taken a turn that is as amusing as it is significant. In a surprising move, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) has officially rejected a divisional patent application from Nintendo and The Pokémon Company regarding their “in-game monster-capturing system.”
While legal disputes are usually dry and filled with jargon, this specific case has captured the internet’s attention—not just because of the outcome, but because of the unusually spicy language used by the JPO examiner.
The “Prior Art” Plot Twist: A Fan Game Wins the Day
Why was the patent rejected? The JPO pointed to something Nintendo likely didn’t want in the spotlight: Pokémon Generations, an indie fan game from 2013.
The examiner used a YouTube gameplay video of this fan game to argue that Nintendo’s “invention” lacked an inventive step. Essentially, the JPO argued that the mechanics Nintendo tried to patent—such as selecting a ball and throwing it at a monster to capture it—were already public knowledge and demonstrated in the fan game years ago.
Nintendo’s Pedantry vs. The Examiner’s Sarcasm
The most captivating part of this saga is the back-and-forth between Nintendo’s lawyers and the JPO examiner. Nintendo attempted to argue that the fan game was an illegal product that infringed on their copyrights, claiming the examiner acted “inappropriately” by treating an infringing product as a valid reference.
The examiner’s response? Absolute dismissal.
The JPO clarified that under patent law, whether a product is legal or infringing has no bearing on whether an idea is “new.” But the real gold is in the examiner’s reaction to Nintendo’s insistence on correct terminology. When Nintendo argued that the examiner should refer to characters as “a character infringing upon Pikachu,” the examiner responded with a masterclass in sarcasm:
“If it were impermissible to refer to character names… the notice would need to use cumbersome descriptions such as ‘an object in the form of a small yellow animal’ instead of Pikachu, or ‘a spherical object with a red upper half and a white lower half’ instead of Poké Ball.”
Does This Stop the Nintendo Palworld Lawsuit?
It is important to clarify the legal nuances here. This rejection does not invalidate the existing patents that Nintendo is currently using in its main lawsuit against Palworld at the Tokyo District Court.
Instead, this concerns a divisional application—an attempt by Nintendo to expand or refine its patent protection. While it doesn’t kill the current lawsuit, it does show that the JPO is not simply rubber-stamping every request Nintendo makes, especially when “prior art” (like fan games) exists.
Key Takeaways from the JPO Ruling:
- n
- Copyright $\neq$ Patent: An infringing product can still be used as a reference to prove an idea isn’t original.
- Fan Games Matter: The community’s creativity can inadvertently create “prior art” that limits corporate patent claims.
- Legal Tension: The level of friction between Nintendo and the JPO is rarely seen in standard patent practices.
n
n
n
As the Japan Patent Office continues to review these claims, the gaming world remains glued to the drama. Whether you are a fan of the Pokémon legacy or a supporter of Palworld’s disruptive success, one thing is clear: the legal battle is becoming a spectacle of its own.
What do you think? Is Nintendo overreaching, or is Palworld simply too close for comfort? Let us know in the comments!
