Nintendo's legal battle against Palworld has suffered a unexpected and critical setback. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has ordered a review of a key patent that Nintendo is using in its lawsuit, citing that its “nearly identical” features already existed in previous patents. But why does this really matter? Is this the technicality that pocketpair needed to save itself, or is it the beginning of a collapse in Nintendo's legal strategy? We analyze it.
A Patent “Owngoal”: Why is the USPTO Intervening Now?
Now, the first thing to understand is that this intervention It is not a normal procedure. It is the first time in more than a decade that the head of the USPTO himself has personally initiated such a review. This is a red flag suggesting that the patent in question (which covers a system for “summoning a sub-character and letting him fight in one of two modes”) is probably should never have been approved.
The office's analysis is devastating: the review is based on “prior art” (previous patents) that describe the same mechanics. The ironic thing is that one of those patents is from Konami (2002) and the other is from Nintendo itself (2019). Basically, the USPTO is questioning the validity of a patent that Nintendo uses to sue others, based on Nintendo's own prior technology.
What Does “Revocation” Mean for the Nintendo Case?
Let's be clear: the patent not yet invalidated. Nintendo has two months to respond. However, the fact that the verification was initiated by the director and cited “prior art” so directly, makes legal analysts consider it “highly probable” that the patent will be revoked.
If Nintendo loses this patent, one of the central pillars of its demand in the US falls apart. They cannot sue Palworld for infringing a patent that the patent office itself considers invalid. It's a direct hit to legal ammunition from Nintendo and a significant victory for Pocketpair.
The Domino Effect: From Japan to the United States
This is certainly not an isolated incident. In fact, it happens just after the Japan Patent Office reject another request from Nintendo related to “creature capture” due to its obvious lack of originality.
Although the legal cases in the US and Japan are separate, both setbacks challenge the originality of the “family of patents” that Nintendo is using globally against Palworld. The narrative that Nintendo “owns” these game mechanics, which many assumed, is being broken. legally weakening by leaps and bounds.
Verdict: Nintendo Loses Armor
Although the demand is still in process, the rejection by the USPTO results in a serious blow for Nintendo. It seems that the Japanese company is close to losing the legal battle against Palworld. This would set a precedent for the corporate sector and invites us to reflect: Has Nintendo taken the issue of its patents too far? And, given the denial about the rights to “capture creatures”, is it possible that the development companies can see a new market and we can see more competition against Pokémon?
Now, nintendo It has been characterized by having a very rigid stance on its patents and licenses. Does it seem fair to you that a company owns the rights to certain specific dynamics in video games? What if a particular genre or topic were exclusive to businesses? Let us know in the comments.
©2025 Pokémon. ©1995 – 2025 Nintendo/Creatures Inc./GAME FREAK inc. TM, ®Nintendo.
Post a Comment