Earlier this week, with the help of a fantastic report from GamesFray, we covered the news of Nintendo securing a new U.S. patent that not only looks like part of their arsenal against Pocketpair’s Palworld, but could also send shockwaves across the wider gaming industry.
I’m of course talking about the patent for summoning other characters to fight for you in a game, otherwise known as Patent No. 12,403,397. I’ve been following the back-and-forth between Nintendo and Pocketpair since the original lawsuit in Japan, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen this much attention on a Nintendo patent filing. And with good reason: it’s insanely broad, it’s certainly not something Nintendo invented, and most people are baffled at how the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted it in the first place.
Thankfully, amid all the uproar, Florian Mueller (the patent and gaming litigation expert behind GamesFray), sat down for a podcast with FritangaPlays to break down exactly how Nintendo managed to push this patent through the USPTO. His take on the documents and the tactics involved is a fascinating listen. I highly recommend checking out the full episode, but for now I’ve pulled together the juiciest highlights below.
How Nintendo’s ‘summoning’ patent slipped through
In the interview, Florian Mueller says that, in his opinion, the patent shouldn’t have been approved at all. “I think it should not have been granted. The patent office made a huge mistake.”
The patent’s wording from the start is deliberately vague. “Storage medium, information processing system, information processing apparatus, and game processing method” could describe virtually anything, from AI systems to self-driving car controllers or even word processors.
While Claim 1 describes a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a game program,” Mueller refers to this as ‘boilerplate’ — an attempt by Nintendo to make the patent appear as a technical invention. Simply submitting “patent this game rule” would have been rejected outright, so the language is deliberately obfuscated.
For the patent to hold legal weight, each claim, starting with Claim 1 and continuing onward, must be infringed. There is no dispute over the so-called storage medium: any video game running on a console or PC obviously satisfies that element, making the first few words essentially meaningless.
The meat of the patent lies in the broader gameplay mechanics, particularly the system for summoning characters to battle.
“If you look at how broad the language is, this is not limited to Pokémon. For example, “Performing control of moving a player character on a field in a virtual space based on a movement operation input”
The real focus is on sub-characters, summoned in response to player input. “A sub-character is distinct from the player character… basically, the player presses a button or moves a joystick, and the sub-character appears.”
The patent even covers positioning relative to enemy characters: “The combination of summoning, sub-characters, and positioning is what gives the patent its potential reach.” That means mechanics in games like Final Fantasy could technically fall under the patent, even though they predate Pokémon-style summons.
Legal interpretation, Müller notes, could be messy. Courts might debate what counts as a “sub-character” or a “field,” and whether a 2D grid could qualify as a virtual space. “Even if a game is technically different, it might still risk infringement,” he warns. Yet despite the patent’s broad wording, Müller believes the actual risk to developers is limited.
“Palworld will continue mostly unaffected… the broad enforcement scenario that people fear probably won’t materialize,” he says. Awareness, he stresses, is key: monitoring patents and understanding prior art can help developers navigate the potential minefield.
This patent would fail under even mild scrutiny, but that’s not the point
Even if the patent wouldn’t survive a court challenge, it has immediate consequences. “Litigation is expensive. Even if you’re right, even if you’re confident you would win, you still have to spend millions fighting the lawsuit. And for smaller developers, that’s not an option. They’d rather settle, or change their game design, than face that risk.”
In other words, Nintendo probably already knows it won’t win every lawsuit, but the existence of the patent alone will deter competition. So, the question remains, how did such a broad gameplay mechanic, one that is within hundreds of other games, get through the USPTO without question?
“The examiner probably didn’t fully consider the scope of prior art in video games, or didn’t fully grasp how common summoning mechanics already were,” notes Mueller.
“Patent law wasn’t originally designed with video games in mind. A lot of the terminology and concepts come from hardware or software patents. So, when game companies file something like this, it can slip through the cracks because the examiner doesn’t have deep gaming knowledge.”
“The examiner probably didn’t fully consider the scope of prior art in video games, or didn’t fully grasp how common summoning mechanics already were.”
Florian Mueller
Nintendo’s U.S. patent has implications far beyond domestic developers. The moment a game enters the U.S. market, it becomes subject to U.S. patent law regardless of whether the developer is based in Europe, China, or Japan.
Smaller developers are the most vulnerable. Big companies like Sony or Microsoft can defend themselves with their own patent portfolios, but startups and indie studios face a chilling effect.
The future of an increasing ‘litigious’ gaming industry
The key to maintaining a healthy, competitive industry, Müller emphasizes, is awareness and proactive defense. “Other developers should actively monitor major players, submit prior art to patent offices, and challenge overly broad patents. That’s how you prevent these issues from becoming standard practice.”
For gamers, he advises staying informed and understanding of changes in titles like Palworld, which may be driven more by litigation than design (lest we forget the not-too-well-received update that broke the game at first).
In the end, Müller’s point is clear: broad patents can provide leverage, but they don’t have to hold back innovation in gaming so long as the industry remains informed when it comes to cases like this. The Nintendo vs. Pocketpair case will continue to be closely watched, especially if Nintendo decides to pursue it in the U.S. Whether this latest patent will actually be used in legal action is still up in the air.
