The Japan Patent Office recently rejected a "creature capture system" patent application filed by Nintendo Co., Ltd., citing insufficient originality. The rejected patent (No. 2024-031879) belongs to the same patent family previously referenced in Nintendo and The Pokémon Company's lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair.
The decision, issued in late October 2025, concluded that the system's implementation showed high similarity to existing game mechanics without demonstrating significant novelty. Examiners cited multiple prior games including Monster Hunter 4, ARK: Survival Evolved, Pocketpair's Craftopia, and Nintendo's own Pokémon GO - all featuring similar creature capture mechanics or designs allowing players to ride and instantly switch between different creatures.
While this specific rejected application isn't the direct subject of infringement claims in the ongoing lawsuit, it belongs to a family containing several approved patents (including JP 7493117, JP 7545191, and JP 7528390), some of which were referenced in the September 19, 2024 lawsuit filed with Tokyo District Court. The lawsuit alleges Palworld copied core gameplay elements from Pokémon series, particularly regarding creature capture and mountable creature switching.
Legal experts note that while a single patent rejection won't directly determine the lawsuit's outcome, it could prompt deeper judicial scrutiny regarding the validity of related patents, especially concerning technical originality. Nintendo has until December 2025 to file amendment requests or appeals against the patent office's decision.
The patent office's ruling currently only affects patent authorization status without directly impacting judicial proceedings, though its conclusions may influence future court assessments of technical originality. The lawsuit, initiated on Palworld's first anniversary, has experienced delays due to procedural matters including patent documentation adjustments, with full proceedings expected to continue through 2026. This patent rejection marks a relatively rare challenge for Nintendo in protecting its classic game mechanics' intellectual property.