“The Patent Office made a huge mistake” — how Nintendo’s problematic ‘summoning patent’ passed without scrutiny

by

Recently, we delved into a captivating story, backed by a commendable report from GamesFray, concerning Nintendo’s recent U.S. patent acquisition. This patent, Patent No. 12,403,397, appears to be a strategic move aimed at countering Pocketpair’s Palworld, potentially causing ripples throughout the broader gaming sector.

The patent pertains to a novel feature in games: summoning characters to aid you in battle. I’ve been keeping tabs on the Nintendo-Pocketpair saga since the initial lawsuit in Japan, and this patent filing has garnered an unprecedented level of interest. And rightfully so; it’s remarkably wide-ranging, seems to lack originality, and leaves many bewildered as to how the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) approved it initially.

In the midst of this uproar, Florian Mueller, the patent and gaming litigation expert behind GamesFray, shared his insights on a podcast with FritangaPlays. His analysis of the patent’s documents and the tactics employed is an engaging listen. I strongly advise you to check out the full episode, but for now, I’ve summarized the most compelling points below.

How Nintendo’s ‘summoning’ patent slipped through

In the interview, Florian Mueller expresses his view that the patent should not have been issued because it was too broadly worded. “I believe it shouldn’t have been given. The patent office erred significantly.”

The original language of the patent is purposely ambiguous. “Storage medium, information processing system, information processing apparatus, and game processing method” could potentially encompass a wide range of technologies, including artificial intelligence systems, autonomous vehicle controllers, or even word processors.

In simpler terms, according to Mueller, Nintendo’s patent for a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a game program” can be considered as ‘legalese’ or ‘boilerplate.’ This is an attempt by Nintendo to make the patent seem like a technical invention. If they had just submitted “patent this game rule,” it would likely have been dismissed immediately, so they used deliberately complex language to make their claim more acceptable.

As a tech enthusiast, I’d rephrase it like this: To be valid, the patent hinges on my innovation being copied across each claim, starting from Claim 1 and beyond. However, it seems the debate is less about the storage medium – whether it’s a console or PC where my game runs – as it’s obvious that they meet that requirement. The real heart of the patent lies in the intricate gameplay mechanics, particularly the unique character summoning system for battles, which could potentially set me apart.

Not just confined to Pokémon, this concept encompasses a wider range of activities. Consider, for instance, directing the movement of a game character across a digital playing field, based on user commands or inputs.

The blend of summoning, auxiliary characters, and positioning is what gives the patent its wide-ranging application.” This implies that game mechanics such as those found in Final Fantasy could potentially fall under the patent’s jurisdiction, despite being introduced prior to the Pokémon-style summons.

understanding patents and prior art can help developers navigate the potential legal challenges they may encounter.

This patent would fail under even mild scrutiny, but that’s not the point

Even though the patent might not stand up in court, its very existence can have immediate financial consequences. For instance, litigation is costly and even if you’re certain of victory, the need to defend against a lawsuit could mean spending millions. This is particularly challenging for smaller developers who may lack the resources to fight such lawsuits. Instead, they often opt to settle or alter their game designs rather than risk the potential costs.

In essence, Nintendo might not win every lawsuit, but having a patent can still discourage competition. The question then arises as to how a widely used gameplay mechanic, one found in numerous other games, managed to secure a patent without question.

According to Mueller, the examiner may not have fully understood or considered the extent of prior art in video games, or they might not have had extensive knowledge about the prevalence of summoning mechanics. He also notes that patent law wasn’t initially designed with video games in mind; many terms and concepts come from hardware or software patents. As a result, game-related patents can sometimes slip through the cracks since the examiner may lack specialized gaming knowledge.

It’s possible that the evaluator overlooked or underestimated the extent to which similar elements, such as summoning mechanics, are prevalent in video games.

Florian Mueller

In simple terms, a patent held by Nintendo in the United States applies not just to local developers, but to any game that gets sold in the U.S. market, irrespective of whether the developer is from Europe, China, or Japan.

Smaller development teams, such as independent studios and startups, are particularly at risk due to their limited resources. Unlike established giants like Sony or Microsoft who can protect themselves with their extensive intellectual property reserves, smaller entities may experience a stifling impact when faced with potential patent disputes.

The future of an increasing ‘litigious’ gaming industry

Müller stresses that vigilance and strategic action are essential for a robust and thriving industry. He suggests other developers should keep tabs on leading companies, present prior art to patent authorities, and challenge overly expansive patents to prevent such practices from becoming widespread.

As for gamers, he recommends staying updated and cognizant of developments in games like Palworld, as alterations may stem less from creative design than legal disputes (as a reminder, the initial update that caused issues was not warmly received).

As a dedicated follower of the gaming industry, I’d like to highlight Müller’s key takeaway: expansive patents can offer an advantage, but they don’t necessarily stifle innovation within our beloved field. However, it’s crucial for us all to stay informed about cases such as Nintendo vs. Pocketpair, especially if Nintendo decides to escalate the matter in the U.S. The future use of this recent patent in legal proceedings remains uncertain at this time.

Read More

2025-09-12 18:11