Lessons From The Pokemon Patent Firestorm

January 20, 2026
Publications

Nintendo Co. Ltd.’s efforts to obtain and enforce patents have long generated strong opinions in the gamer community.

Its ongoing patent infringement case against “Palworld” developer Pocket Pair, alleging that the game’s mechanics are too similar to Nintendo’s Pokémon franchise, has generated significant buzz in the gamer community.

That buzz was intensified by recent events, including Pocket Pair’s announcement of a competitive “Palworld” card game, seen as a bold response amid litigation, and Nintendo being granted a patent, U.S. Patent No. 12,403,397, perceived by many as bestowing the company with exclusive rights to the trope of summoning characters to help in a battle.

Gamer Backlash Over Battle Mechanics

The outcry against the ‘397 patent was so great that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires took the unusual step of ordering reexamination of the patent of his own initiative.

According to the USPTO’s most recently updated statistics, of the more than 15,000 ex parte reexamination requests filed since the procedure was introduced over 40 years ago, just over 1% have been granted by order of the commissioner.

The ‘397 patent dates back to an original filing from March 2023, when Nintendo and The Pokémon Co. filed a patent application claiming priority to a Japanese patent application filed in August 2022. The application received a first action allowance in July 2025 and was granted a few weeks later, on Sept. 9.

What Nintendo’s ‘397 Patent Actually Claims

The granted independent claims of the patent are directed to moving a player character on a field in a virtual space, causing a subcharacter to appear on the field based on operation input, and either:

Controlling a battle between the subcharacter and an enemy character by operation input via manual control when the enemy character is placed at the location where the subcharacter is caused to appear; or
Controlling the subcharacter automatically when the enemy character is not placed at the location where the subcharacter is caused to appear.

Additionally, separately, the claims are further directed to moving the subcharacter in a predetermined direction on the field based on another operation input, and, when the enemy character is placed at a location of a designation, controlling a battle between the subcharacter and the enemy character by a second mode in which the battle proceeds automatically.

The language of the claims is somewhat convoluted, and the precise relationship between the subclauses requires some study. In allowing the patent, the examiner noted as the reason for the allowance that “the player can be allowed to perform two types of battles, that is, a battle by the first mode in which the player performs an operation input and a battle by the simpler second mode.”

The public outcry followed shortly thereafter. Gamers quickly perceived that the broad wording of the ‘397 patent granted Nintendo and The Pokémon Co. an exclusive right to the abstract idea of summoning subcharacters to battle an enemy character in either a manual player-controlled or automatic-controlled mode.

The consternation of gamers aligns with the reason expressed by the examiner for granting allowance of the claims, which seems to suggest the novelty of the claim lies in the ability to battle with a summoned subcharacter in both automatic and manual modes.

Reasons for allowance are typically short, often simple and don’t necessarily capture the full particular nuance understood by an examiner, which is one of the reasons such statements are generally regarded with a jaundiced eye by many experienced patent prosecutors. Even more so, examiner shorthand can also result in misunderstandings by lay people who don’t necessarily understand that claim language still controls.

The sturm and drang of gamers and the resulting media attention this case received may be based on an inaccurate impression that the ‘397 patent grants exclusivity on the concept of summoning subcharacters to battle an enemy character in either a manual player-controlled or automatic-controlled mode, but practitioners know that patents are not granted on ephemeral concepts, but rather on definite inventions, the metes and bounds of which are set by all of the claim limitations in combination.

Here, the granted patent claims described as broad are actually fairly narrow, being tied in effect to a specific game mechanic wherein the location of the summoning of a subcharacter determines the initial state of whether a manual battle occurs: Does the thrown Pokéball hit an enemy or not?

There is also a curious mechanic where, thereafter, if the subcharacter is present and moving about in relation to the main character, if the subcharacter and an enemy character come into close proximity, then an automatic battle starts between the subcharacter and the enemy character without any action or control by the main character or player.

This combined mechanic may or may not be obvious or patentable. Still, it is certainly not ubiquitous in gaming, nor does the ‘397 patent grant the assignee any sort of broad exclusivity of the game mechanic of battling with a summoned subcharacter in both automatic and manual modes.

First action allowances are uncommon, but hardly rare. Overblown reactions, on the other hand, are the daily outrage that fuels our social media-based economy.

Why the USPTO Stepped in so Quickly

This all comes back to the director’s self-initiated reexamination order. It is unclear exactly why Squires was motivated to direct reexamination in this case.

Indeed, most recent headlines about the USPTO have focused on the director’s control over inter partes reviews and the increasing reluctance of the patent office to institute trials for IPR petitions in contested proceedings. Then why did the patent office move here in seemingly the opposite direction?

These two occurrences are not necessarily incompatible. A common theme in IPR denials has been a settled expectations rationale, which is not the case here, given that the director’s order for reexamination was issued just a couple of months after the grant.

Moreover, the costs and resources of the USPTO associated with a reexamination are far less than those of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board trial. Arguably, the director’s action may even have been designed to prove a point and remind the patent bar that there’s more than one effective way to challenge a patent.

Media coverage and gamer outrage likely amplified scrutiny. Does public opinion influence patent review? This case suggests it may have, but not necessarily that it should have. While transparency is essential, regulatory decisions driven by headlines rather than procedure create uncertainty for innovators.

Time will tell the outcome of the ‘397 patent. Perhaps it will survive as granted with additional explication by the patent owner; perhaps further amendments will help the claims emerge in a way that resolves the lingering misapprehension of scope; or perhaps it will result in all claims being canceled.

Practice Lessons From a Public Patent Firestorm

In any case, for patent practitioners, this episode highlights risks associated with drafting claims that are ambiguous, unnecessarily complex or overly aggressive. It serves as a reminder that the patent grant isn’t always the end of the story, even before an infringement dispute arises. In the creative industries, broad claims not only invite legal challenges but also reputational ones. Key takeaways include the following.

First, clarity matters. Avoid convoluted language that fuels misinterpretation.

Second, anticipate backlash. Public discourse can amplify regulatory attention.

And third, remember portfolio resilience. Build strategies that withstand both legal and reputational challenges.

Could this case embolden other developers to challenge big-name patents? Possibly. While this may be a one-off case, it signals that even established players are not immune to heightened scrutiny.

Pocket Pair’s decision to announce a competitive two-player card game set in the “Palworld” universe, while litigation is pending, underscores that some challengers may respond not by retreating, but by doubling down. If director-initiated reviews become more common, expect a shift toward more conservative and precise claim drafting.