The Patentability of Gameplay: Nintendo’s Pokémon Patents and Their Competitive Consequences
When Satoshi Tajiri approached Nintendo with the idea of “pocket monsters”, he could hardly have foreseen that it would become the world’s highest-grossing media franchise. [2] Tajiri’s obsession with catching and collecting insects inspired him to imagine them crawling between the cables connecting Nintendo’s Game Boy portable console.[3] This vision eventually became Pokémon, which Nintendo officially launched in 1996.[4] The franchise, in which players capture unique creatures in the wild and use them to battle other “trainers,” has since expanded to encompass nine “generations” of Pokémon games, with a tenth on the way. Beyond video games, the franchise includes trading cards, books, movies, television series, toys, and a wide range of other media or merchandise.[5]
In September of 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), granted Nintendo and The Pokémon Company several patents covering video game mechanics that are central to the Pokémon series.[6] One of the most controversial was a patent for the system of summoning a subcharacter to fight in one of two battle modes, one in which the summoned character fights automatically, the other in which the summoned character is manually controlled by the player.[7] Nintendo also obtained patents relating to throwing objects toward in-game characters and transitioning between different modes of transportation while riding in-game characters, including switching from aerial to ground-based travel.[8]
For a patent to be issued by the USPTO, five requirements must be met.[9] First, the invention must be useful.[10] In other words, the invention must have a specific and credible utility.[11] Second, the patent application must adequately describe the invention and explain how to make and use the invention.[12] Third, the invention must be new or novel in some way.[13] In general, an invention that was already publicly known or disclosed in qualifying prior art before the relevant filing date cannot be patented.[14] Next, the invention must be nonobvious, meaning that the differences between the claimed invention and a combination of the prior art must not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant field before the effective filing date of the invention’s patent application.[15] Additionally, the claimed invention must constitute patent-eligible subject matter which excludes abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon.[16] Although software inventions may be patented, abstract ideas are generally not patent eligible merely because they were implemented through computer technology.[17]
The patents granted to Nintendo have been extensively criticized as overly broad, as have many patents covering video game mechanics in the past.[18] While many critics recognize that developers should have the right to benefit from patents covering their unique software innovations, they simultaneously attack patents for game mechanics, arguing that overly broad software patents stifle innovation.[19] Intellectual property attorneys have also been vocal in their criticism of the USPTO’s grant of these patents.[20] Kirk Sigmon, an attorney who practices patent law and cross-border intellectual property law, called the approvals “an embarrassing failure of the U.S. patent system” and argued that the claims were “in no way allowable” because the underlying concepts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.[21] Sigmon also criticized the examination process, noting that the approval by the USPTO cites the application itself as its reason for approval and was based on the review of just sixteen U.S. patents, seven Japanese patents, and an article from Pokémon's own website.[22] Haley McLean, a video game attorney, explained that although ideas cannot be patented, patent attorneys representing companies like Nintendo frame ideas as specific functions performed by software rather than as general concepts of game mechanics.[23]
The real-world effects of these patents have already been felt, as Nintendo initiated a lawsuit against competitor Palworld, developed by Pocketpair, Inc., for patent infringement.[24] Filed in Japan, the lawsuit alleges infringement of three Nintendo patents, which happen to be the Japanese counterparts to the patents approved by the USPTO in 2025.[25] The patents, JP7545191, JP7493117 and JP7528390, cover gameplay mechanics including character capture and summoning, as well as mechanics involving riding characters for transportation.[26] In response to the lawsuit, Pocketpair immediately removed the allegedly infringing mechanics as a precautionary measure to on-going litigation.[27]
While the Japanese patents remain in full effect, Nintendo’s U.S. patents now face scrutiny.[28] Just two months after the patent was issued, the Director of the USPTO ordered an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) of the patent for the mechanic of summoning creatures and auto battling.[29] In March of 2026, the USPTO issued a non-final Office Action rejecting every claim in Nintendo’s U.S. Patent No. 12,403,397 as obvious in view of prior art.[30] The USPTO found three instances of prior art, which, taken together, would have made the mechanic and software claims obvious to a person with ordinary skill in game development.[31] Nintendo subsequently filed a response on June 25, 2026, contesting the rejection through the ongoing reexamination proceedings. [32] Although the examiner rejected every claim, the rejection did not automatically cancel the patent, and the final outcome of the reexamination remains unresolved. [33]
If patents such as Nintendo’s that may extend too broadly over gameplay mechanics, the downstream effects may have serious ramifications for the video game industry.[34] Game development, innovation, and competition could be significantly hindered.[35] By patenting the broad concepts central to their games under the guise of protecting unique software, large developers will be able to bully smaller, independent innovators by suing them for patent infringement.[36] There is seemingly little room for innovation for small developers buried in litigation costs and burdened by uncertainty as to whether their invention violates a patent.[37]
References
[1] Photo by Thimo Pedersen, A bunch of Pokémon Trading Cards with Zapdos, Ninetales, Porygon, Cyndaquil, Ponyta, Machop, Vulpix and many more, Unsplash (Feb. 19, 2021), https://unsplash.com/photos/pokemon-trading-cards-scattered-collection-TWCnHKKhqSo.
[2] See Gregory Wakeman, Nintendo Released Its First ‘Pokémon’ Games 30 Years Ago. Here’s How the Beloved Catchable ‘Pocket Monsters’ Became the World’s Biggest Media Franchise, Smithsonian Mag. (Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/nintendo-released-its-first-pokemon-games-30-years-ago-heres-how-the-beloved-catchable-pocket-monsters-became-the-worlds-biggest-media-franchise-180988271/.
[3] See id.
[4] See id.
[5] See List of Pokémon Video Games, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_video_games#Main_series_games/remakes (last visited Oct. 15, 2026).
[6] See Florian Mueller, U.S. Patent Examiner Rejects Nintendo’s “Summon Subcharacter and Let It Fight in 1 of 2 Modes” Patent as Obvious: Non-Final Ruling, Games Fray (Apr. 1, 2026), https://gamesfray.com/u-s-patent-examiner-rejects-nintendos-summon-subcharacter-and-let-it-fight-in-1-of-2-modes-patent-as-obvious-non-final-ruling/.
[7] See id.
[8] See U.S. Patent No. 12,220,638 (issued Feb. 11, 2025); see also U.S. Patent No. 12,246,255 (issued Mar. 11, 2025).
[9] See U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., Patent Essentials, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/essentials (last visited Oct. 15, 2026).
[10] See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2018); see also Patent Essentials, supra note 9.
[11] See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2018); see also Patent Essentials, supra note 9.
[12] See 35 U.S.C. § 112; see also Patent Essentials, supra note 9.
[13] See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a); see also Patent Essentials, supra note 9.
[14] See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)–(2); see also Patent Essentials, supra note 9.
[15] See 35 U.S.C. § 103; see also Patent Essentials, supra note 9.
[16] See 35 U.S.C. § 101; see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 211 (2014); U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2106.04 (9th ed. Rev. Jan. 2024).
[17] See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MPEP § 2106.
[18] See Lucy Hanson, Playing the Patent Game: Protecting Video Game Mechanics as Intellectual Property, 2025 B.C. Intell. Prop. & Tech. F. 1, 2 (2025).
[19] See id.
[20] See Lincoln Carpenter, ‘An Embarrassing Failure of the US Patent System’: Videogame IP Lawyer Says Nintendo’s Latest Patents on Pokémon Mechanics ‘Should Not Have Happened, Full Stop’, PC Gamer (Sep. 10, 2025), https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/an-embarrassing-failure-of-the-us-patent-system-videogame-ip-lawyer-says-nintendos-latest-patents-on-pokemon-mechanics-should-not-have-happened-full-stop/.
[21] See id.
[22] See id.
[23] See Nicole Carpenter, What Does Nintendo’s Recent Pokemon Patent Actually Mean for Game Developers?, Game Developer (Sep. 25, 2025), https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/what-does-nintendo-s-new-pok-mon-patent-actually-mean-for-game-developers-.
[24] See Nishith Desai Assocs., AI-Driven Innovations: The Global Surge in Patent Disputes in Tech and Gaming, Lexology (Oct. 29, 2025), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=533dcc2a-4bea-46c9-b4ec-c2edd143104a.
[25] See id.
[26] See id.
[27] See Oli Welsh, Palworld Devs Blame Nintendo Pokémon Lawsuit for ‘Disappointing’ Game Changes, Polygon (May 8, 2025), https://www.polygon.com/gaming/598094/palworld-changes-nintendo-pokemon-lawsuit-disappointing/.
[28] See Mueller, supra note 6.
[29] See id.
[30] See id.
[31] See U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination, Reexamination Control No. 90/020,162 (Mar. 25, 2026).
https://gamesfray.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/26-03-25-USPTO-rejection-notice.pdf; see also 35 U.S.C. § 103; U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2141 (9th ed. Rev. Jan. 2024).
[32] See Reexamination History, Storage Medium, Information Processing System, Information Processing Apparatus, and Game Processing Method, Reexamination Control No. 90/020,162, ExamPat, https://exampat.com/reexams/90020162 (last visited Oct. 28, 2026) ; see also MPEP § 2266 (9th ed. Rev. Jan. 2024).
[33] See 35 U.S.C. § 307(a); see also MPEP § 2288; Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination, supra note 31.
[34] See Mueller, supra note 6.
[35] See Carpenter, ‘An Embarrassing Failure of the US Patent System’: Videogame IP Lawyer Says Nintendo’s Latest Patents on Pokémon Mechanics ‘Should Not Have Happened, Full Stop’, supra note 20.
[36] See id.
[37] See id.
Comments