Nintendo, Pokémon Co. Sue Pocketpair Over ‘Palworld’ For… Patent Infringement?
from the a-patent-for-what-exactly? dept
Well, it took awhile, but we finally got here. Earlier this year, we discussed the game Palworld shortly after its release. It made our pages because the game is clearly partially inspired by the Pokémon series of video games, with some very stark differences. Similarities aside, the characters in the game are certainly different than those in Pokémon games, coupled with the use of firearms in the game along with other game mechanics that made it demonstrably different than any other game. As we highlighted at the time, this made Palworld something of an example of how the idea/expression dichotomy works and we warned that, while Nintendo or The Pokémon Co. might eventually pursue legal action over the game, a copyright suit ought to have a hard time surviving a defense using that dichotomy.
Which is why, while I wasn’t terribly surprised to learn that Nintendo and The Pokémon Co. have in fact sued Pocketpair over its Palworld game, I sure wasn’t expecting to learn that it was doing so over patent infringement.
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company announced they have filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against Pocketpair, the makers of the heavily Pokémon-inspired Palworld. The Tokyo District Court lawsuit seeks an injunction and damages “on the grounds that Palworld infringes multiple patent rights,” according to the announcement.
Beyond mere copyright concerns, though, Nintendo’s lawsuit announcement specifically alleges patent infringement on the part of Palworld (though this difference could come down to vagaries of translation from the original Japanese). A lawsuit over patents would seemingly require some unique game mechanic or feature that has been specifically granted stronger protections by the patent office. While the Pokémon Company does hold a number of (US) patents, most of them seem to deal with various server communications methods or the sleep monitoring capabilities of Pokémon Sleep.
Adding to the mystery in all of this is that nobody but the plaintiffs seems to have any idea what these patents that were infringed upon could be. I tend to agree that perhaps there’s a translation issue at work here and this really is instead a copyright and/or trademark infringement suit, but we’ll have to wait for more to come out to see.
If it is patents, I’ll be surprised. I’ll be even more surprised if there is any validity to such a patent infringement claim. That’s just not typically how these things in the video game industry work.
But if it really is a trademark and/or copyright claim, it should fail and fail hard… if this suit were brought in the United States. In Japan, however, it’s more complicated. Japanese copyright law does not have an explicit idea/expression dichotomy in the way US copyright law has, but the courts there do sometimes give a nod to and use it in a similar way.
But any sane copyright law would allow for games to be inspired by, but not replicas of, an original work. The whole point of copyright generally is not to allow any one entity own the concepts that go into a video game, but instead the specific expression of the same. And, for what it’s worth, Pocketpair too appears to be confused as to what this is all about.
“We have received notice of this lawsuit and will begin the appropriate legal proceedings and investigations into the claims of patent infringement,” Pocketpair says in a statement. “At this moment, we are unaware of the specific patents we are accused of infringing upon, and we have not been notified of such details.”
And so now we wait to see what the actual details here are. Frankly, sans some translation issue, none of this makes much sense to me. And while Nintendo and The Pokémon Co. certainly have shown themselves to be willing to stretch IP laws to be the bully generally, this seems to go beyond the norm.
Filed Under: copyright, idea expression dichotomy, japan, palworld, patents, pokemon, satire, trademark, video games
Companies: nintendo, pocketpair, pokemon company


Comments on “Nintendo, Pokémon Co. Sue Pocketpair Over ‘Palworld’ For… Patent Infringement?”
Someone Thinks They Found The Patent
It was granted in 2021, and it’s for throwing a ball in an open world to release a monster to do battle. Sounds like the kind of thing that should not be patentable, but it was granted in the US. Presumably it’s granted in Japan as well.
Re:
did the someone share the patent number so anyone else could look at it?
Re: Re:
Seems like someone gave afairly specific query to use, if accurate.
Re: Re: Re:
Every article I can find speculating on this indicates the US patent matching that description was not granted. Only the Japanese. the TLC is however the second person I’ve encountered who claimed there was a granted US Patent. I at this point can’t be sure there aren’t multiple US patents/patent applications being discussed. Its not worth the effort to search for a speculative patent that may or may not be valid, and may or may not be competing with another patent for similar things. I was hoping to get back to the sources of the claims directly.
Re: Re:
The only related result I could find was this page (translated from Japanese).
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you. Taking the patent number JP7545191 from that, I used google patents for a UI I’m used to.
Interestingly, It appears Palworld would be unaware of the patent because it was only granted this month.
Re: Re: Re:2
Also, based on what is included in the patent, it seems to be unrelated to Nintendo’s claims, suggesting (at least) that they’re engaged in patent trolling.
Re:
That specific patent is for using an input method to translate a throwing motion into an in-game action (read: swinging a Joycon to throw a pokeball).
A lot of ideas that Pokemon uses (collectible monsters etc) were first implemented in the Commodore 64 game, Mail Order Monsters.
So someone should be suing Nintendo!
Re:
Not to mention a series such as Megami Tensei which defined the modern version of this idea two years later.
Re:
Or RoboTrek, which used balls to capture robots and use them to fight, and came out a few years before Pokemon.
How’s that saying go, something along the lines of ‘Vagueness in legal threats is a sign of legal thuggery’?
If Nintendo really had such a strong case you’d think they’d have lead with ‘Here’s the patents you are accused of violating’, that the company they’re suing apparently has no idea what they’re being accused of violating does not leave me confident in Nintendo’s claims.
Re:
Sounds like a Sidney Powell scenario. “Our evidence is so powerful it’s obvious what it is and I don’t have to tell you” eventually turned into “The evidence never existed, it was such an obvious troll you were stupid to ever have believed me”.
Re:
Basically, you’d have a right to confront the accuser so you can know what you’re being accused of stealing and then to test the veracity of the accusation beyond any reasonable doubt. Makes me think that Nintendo is desperate if they can’t come up with a particular reason as to why they’re doing this.
The patent for capturing Mons might not even be valid in the USA, even if it’s used in Japan. So the game might be banned in Japan, but people everywhere can still play it. Reminiscent of how the writings of Russian dissidents published through samizdat and smuggled to the West were illegal in the Soviet Union, but legal in the West.
IP is the censorship of our time.
Re:
International IP regimes and legal judgements will be respected by steam. There are significant differences in the Legal issues in play, the mediums at issue, and the realities of distribution in the modern era that materially affect the ability to breach patent law the way copyright was breached in the scenarios you discuss.
Re: Re:
They’ll only be respected insofar as the patents are actually valid within the country that’s playing the game. Japanese Palworld players might need a VPN to continue playing their games, but American and European players wouldn’t need one- the point I’m making is that Palworld can’t be played under normal circumstances in the country of origin. It’s the “video can’t be played in your country or region” message you see on YouTube but applied to an entire video game.
Re: Re: Re:
Palworld is, thankfully, not an online-only/GaaS/shit game, so you can play locally and connect to servers without a VPN even if it was removed from Steam.
When even a company known for false copyright/trademark lawsuits knows that they have no chance of pulling one over on the courts by those avenues…
Pokemon must be failing
This seems like a sign of weakness on Pokemon’s part. They might be facing financial difficulties
Assuming the patent ever turns up...
It’s most likely a design patent rather than an invention patent. So more like the Apple “rounded corners” case.
Remember
Although what I’m about to say may irk some people. This is all taking place in a Japanese District court, the way Japan handles these types of laws is WAY different than how America or the EU handles it. For all intents and purposes, we are spectators in this.
As for my own two cents, I’m not really rooting for either side. Although this case does interest me in how the Gaming Industry reacts to this lawsuit, especially Square-Enix and Sega/Atlus, since they have “Monster Catching” games too
Re:
https://www.404media.co/cold-blooded-business-nintendo-is-patent-trolling-palworld-because-it-got-too-big/
According to this article, Japan isn’t gonna do anything other than sneer at Pocketpair for being too greedy.
Nintendo is going to force Pocketpair to either cough up its pound of flesh or drag Pocketpair through the Japanese courts, and Nintendo IS petty enough to go either way.
Re: Re:
Regardless of the circumstances, I will be watching this case with great interest, see how other big companies react