**From the Try-Try-Again Dept: Nintendo’s Bizarre Patent Lawsuit Against PocketPair**

This situation is actually pretty fascinating. For some time now, we’ve been following the somewhat bizarre patent lawsuit Nintendo is waging against PocketPair in Japan. PocketPair is the company behind the hit game *Palworld*, which has obviously drawn inspiration from the Pokémon franchise—but without doing any direct copying.

Nintendo’s aggressive legal move is powered by several held or applied-for patents in Japan that cover some very general gameplay elements. Most, if not all, of these patents have ample prior art found in previous games and game mods.

### Two Developments on Opposite Sides of the Ocean

Recently, two notable developments occurred, one in the United States and one in Japan.

In September, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) approved a couple of new, but related patents. The approval was so questionable that at least one patent attorney called it an “embarrassing failure.” Meanwhile, in Japan, a patent that Nintendo applied for—which sits between two approved patents currently being used in the Palworld lawsuit—was rejected for being unoriginal, with clear prior art existing.

Given how closely related this rejected patent is to the approved ones, the same logic could apply to those patents as well. This raises serious questions about whether all of these patents should simply be invalidated.

### The USPTO’s Re-Examination Order

One of the patents approved without proper due diligence is patent #12,403,397. This patent covers the summoning of a “sub character” that fights either at the player’s command or autonomously based on player input. There is significant prior art for this concept, which is why the approval is seen as an embarrassing mistake.

In a rare move, USPTO Director John Squires personally ordered a re-examination of this patent—the first time in a decade that a director has done so. He cited prior patents that might render this one invalid.

In his order, Squires stated he had “determined that substantial new questions of patentability have arisen” based on two earlier patents: the Yabe patent and the Taura patent.

– The **Yabe patent**, granted in 2002 to Konami, describes a sub-character fighting alongside the player either automatically or manually.
– The **Taura patent**, granted in 2020 to Nintendo itself, also refers to a sub-character who battles alongside the player.

Interestingly, one of the previous patents that may invalidate the new one is owned by Nintendo itself.

### Are These Gameplay Mechanic Patents Too Generic to Patent?

From my perspective, these gameplay mechanic patents are still far too generic and obvious to those in the industry to be truly patentable. That doesn’t appear to be the argument Director Squires is making, however. Instead, he pointed out that the original examiner came to a flawed conclusion, seemingly ignoring prior art by focusing on minute specifics in the new patent and therefore never properly considering the Yabe and Taura patents.

### What Does This Mean for Nintendo?

Though the USPTO’s re-examination doesn’t directly affect the patent suit in Japan, it’s hard not to see these events in context alongside the patent rejection in Japan and the ongoing lawsuit. It paints a picture of a shaky legal foundation—a house of cards—that could collapse on Nintendo.

Most importantly, it’s difficult to understand what Nintendo hopes to gain from all this. The lawsuit has generated bad publicity, legal costs, wasted time, energy, and effort. Meanwhile, *Palworld* remains a hit, and the Pokémon franchise remains strong.

So, what are we really doing here?
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/05/uspto-to-re-examine-recently-approved-nintendo-patent/