Skip To...
When Palworld first launched, a lot of people brushed it off as ‘Pokémon with guns,’ expecting the gimmick to fizzle as fast as the memes. Then Nintendo’s lawyers started biting and people are staying for the legal brawl. But the longer this drags on, the less it looks like a simple IP spat. Palworld may just be Nintendo’s test case, a way to set precedent for how far it can push its legal weight with patent abuse.
Because if you’ve been paying attention, the Mario maker hasn’t just been suing over Pokeball knockoffs. It’s now eyeing on everyday gameplay mechanics most likely used in one of your top 10 games.
Whose Gameplay Is It Anyway?
In the past few years, Nintendo has been stockpiling ammo that stretches well beyond protecting Pikachu and friends’ likenesses. First, it was the three Japanese filings:
- JP 7545191 for the mechanics of catching monsters using throwable objects.
- JP 7493117 for the calculations behind the capture rates.
- JP 7528390 for seamless riding mechanics.
A while back, those same ideas were protected in the United States with US Patent 12,409,387, where litigation carries bigger teeth and heavier costs. Now comes the latest offender: US Patent 12,403,397, covering summoning and battling with ‘sub-characters.’
One could argue that’s basically Pokémon‘s bread and butter mechanic, the main draw of the series. However, it’s also a mechanic that countless RPGs and other games have been using before handheld gaming even became mainstream.
Atlus’ cult classic RPG Shin Megami Tensei, in which you can capture and summon demons, debuted in 1992 for the NES. That’s four whole years before Charizard turned into a sensation in Japan. Then how about Wizardry 4, where, as the evil Werdna, you summon monsters to fight past games’ heroes? That was released in 1987.
Since then, others have followed suit — but with their own twist on the mechanic that makes them far different from their predecessors. Final Fantasy and other games with the Beastmaster job. Necromancer-like classes in hack-and-slash action RPGs like Diablo. The titular Overlord and his imps. And of course, hundreds of Pokémon competitors from Digimon, Medabots, to Dragon Quest Monsters and Monster Hunter Stories.
Speaking with PCGamer, patent lawyer Kirk Sigmon was quite blunt about how the US Patent Office handled Nintendo’s patent abuse. “This seems like a situation where the USPTO essentially gave up and just allowed the case, […] I strongly disagree with this result: In my view, these claims were in no way allowable.”
So why hasn’t Nintendo pulled the legal trigger sooner before the system became too mainstream? Palworld pulling in 15 million copies on PC, 10 million Xbox fans, and a partnership with Sony might be the answer to that question. In short, these absurdities aren’t just for protecting Pokémon against potential copycats. Nintendo is blatantly abusing patents to pressure smaller rivals and claim ownership of fundamental gameplay ideas.
Not Nintendo’s — or Even the Industry’s — First Rodeo
Unfortunately, I don’t think this whole Nintendo vs Palworld lawsuit is going to be just a trivial scenario that’s quickly forgotten next year. Locking fun gameplay ideas behind legal walls has been part of the industry’s DNA for decades — and the fallout has been far-reaching.
In Japan, Nintendo already made headlines back in December 2017 when it sued mobile game developer Colopl. The lawsuit claimed Shironeko Project infringed on several patents, including:
- A touch-screen joystick system, where players can drag a finger across the screen to mimic analog input.
- Attacks based on tapping a specific spot on the screen.
- A sleep-mode confirmation screen.
- Multiplayer systems like followers, sharing, and user messaging.
Colopl eventually caved in 2021, agreeing to pay Nintendo around $30 million in damages — and to license gameplay patents going forward. And Nintendo is not alone in abusing patents to stifle any kind of competition, direct or not.
Some include Bandai Namco, which notoriously patented loading-screen minigames and blocked developers from making downtime fun for nearly two decades. It only ended when the patent expired in 2015, and at that point, loading screens had already become fast enough that the feature felt irrelevant.
SEGA also famously patented Crazy Taxi‘s big floating arrow navigation system. When The Simpsons: Road Rage was released to the market, SEGA took all parties involved to court. Yep, from The Simpsons‘ owner, Fox, to Electronic Arts and Radical Entertainment as its publisher and developer. Seen any similar games since?
Warner Bros. went even further with Shadow of Mordor‘s Nemesis system. Ever wondered why no one has bothered to recreate its dynamic, recurring rival enemies system? That brilliant idea was patented into oblivion, effectively freezing out one of the most celebrated gameplay innovations of the last decade. The patent doesn’t expire until 2036, even after the developer was shuttered.
Why Nintendo’s Patent Abuse Matters to Developers and Gamers Alike
The problem here is that Nintendo isn’t just hoarding gimmicks and aiming straight at popular mechanics. And let’s be real, the company also won’t touch the big fish, such as Bandai Namco, SEGA, Square Enix, or Activision. Otherwise, it would’ve done it years ago. Their targets here are obviously the little fish who can’t afford a lawyer slugfest.
Worst of all, Nintendo doesn’t actually need an airtight case for these patents to do damage. The mere threat of a lawsuit can scare smaller studios, as even if they’d almost certainly win, defending themselves in court costs millions. Most indie developers will not — or cannot — risk paying such a price.
For gamers, this shouldn’t be some abstract legal scuffle that you can easily dismiss, either. Putting a stranglehold or locking beloved mechanics behind a legal vault means less diversity across genres. Imagine if a Spider-Man game comes with dynamic Sinister Six boss battles with Nemesis systems. Or the opposite: imagine if Nintendo-inspired games like Pizza Tower, Oceanhorn, and Palworld aren’t allowed to exist. Just because the source of their inspiration, this supposed creative beacon of the industry, looked at them funny.
Well, it might just be what’s currently happening now — again. One studio gets to gatekeep, while other creators and gamers lose the chance to play with them in new and unexpected ways.
