Nintendo vs. Palworld: The Patent Controversy That Could Reshape Game Development

Introduction

In September 2024, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company started legal proceedings against Pocketpair, the developer of Palworld, alleging infringement on several patents related to game mechanics. The suit filed with the Tokyo District Court is not about character design similarities but about game mechanisms such as creature capture, summoning, and riding — features that Nintendo maintains are patented (Polygon).

The Patents in Question

Nintendo's complaint is aimed at several gameplay elements in Palworld that it argues violate its patents:

• Creature Capture Mechanic: Using a "Pal Sphere" to catch creatures, likened by Nintendo to its Poké Ball system.
• Summoning Mechanics: Summoning creatures during gameplay, a gameplay element present in both Palworld and Pokémon.
• Riding Mechanics: Tamed animals may be ridden in Palworld, similar to riding Pokémon in certain Pokémon titles.

Nintendo claims that these mechanics are already patented, and that Palworld's adaptation is infringement (IndiaTimes).

Pocketpair's Defense

Pocketpair disagrees with the validity of these patents by pointing out the same mechanics in many other games:

• Rune Factory 5 and Octopath Traveler feature creature recruitment or capture.
• Final Fantasy XIV, Tomb Raider, and Pikmin 3 allow playing in summoning or commanding allies.
• Monster Hunter 4, Breath of the Wild, and ARK: Survival Evolved all feature riding or mount mechanics.

In their defense, Pocketpair used examples of similar mechanics in earlier games to say that Nintendo's patents are too wide and unwarranted (Windows Central, GamesRadar).

The Problem With Nintendo's Patents

The case highlights Nintendo's broader policy of aggressively patenting not just technology, but even basic elements of play. Over the years, Nintendo has sought out and enforced patents that have been widely viewed throughout the industry as overly broad or creatively restrictive:

• Motion-Control Technology: Nintendo patented Wii and DS motion-tracking systems that detect the orientation and location of a controller based on spatial data and reflected light (Reddit discussion of motion patents).
• Creature-Interaction Systems: In its case against Palworld, Nintendo cited patents such as JP7493117 that include creature movement, summoning systems, and character collision behavior. These systems are the basis for a wide range of RPGs and adventure games.

Critics argue that such patents are not protecting new inventions but, rather, laying legal claims to widely employed gameplay elements — such as capturing, summoning, or riding animals — that form the basis of entire genres.

This isn't an issue exclusive to Nintendo. BioWare, for instance, received U.S. Patent No. 8,082,499, for a radial dialogue wheel system used in Mass Effect and its follow-up RPGs like Dragon Age and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. The patent itself describes a graphical interface where dialogue options are assigned to a radial menu, and the player is able to select emotional or tonal responses to apply when communicating in an intuitive way. This mechanic has been the most widely recognized attribute in RPGs.

The patent was a concern to the gaming community because it would restrict other games from doing similar dialogue mechanics in their own games. The Reddit thread shows how the patent would discourage other developers from using a similar system in their games. However, the patent was not robust enough to discourage all forms of branching dialogue systems, with other games like The Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk 2077 having their own unique systems.

This scandal mirrors criticism regarding Nintendo's similar patent assertions. While these patents are in place to protect innovation, detractors maintain that they often assert underlying mechanics that are cornerstones for whole genres — like creature collecting, ghost racing, or menu navigation — and thus stifle creative innovation across the gaming business. Should these cornerstone elements of gameplay ever be patentable?

While patents exist to incentivize innovation, abuse of excessively broad patents has the potential to freeze creativity, particularly among indie devs who have no legal right to fight them. The Palworld situation is thus indicative of a greater argument: are core gameplay mechanics — creature collecting, ghost racing, or navigating menus, for example — even ownable?

These critics argue that these patents serve to restrict and not promote innovation — especially for independent developers who do not have the legal or financial resources to defend themselves.

This mirrors other contentious patents in the field, such as Bethesda's short-lived holding on a specific dialogue menu setup in FPS games (Wikipedia – Video game IP). While patents are necessary to protect genuine technical innovation, overly expansive protection of inventive ideas—such as "riding a mount" or "throwing an object to capture"—potentially have a chilling impact on the creation of new games.

Changes Made by Pocketpair

In order to reduce further legal risk, Pocketpair made the following changes to Palworld's gameplay:

• Pal Sphere Mechanic Removed: It is no longer possible to capture Pals with a Poké Ball-like item.
• Gliding Overhaul: Mount-based gliding has been replaced with a personal glider system.
• Combat Tweaks: Certain animations were altered to reduce visual similarity to Pokémon mechanics.

These changes were described as "disappointing but necessary" by the developers themselves, aware of the limitations introduced due to the ongoing lawsuit (Polygon).

Community Reaction

Players and indie game developers have rallied around Pocketpair, critiquing Nintendo for employing IP law as a tool for stifling competition. To many, it is not a defense of intellectual property or creative endeavor, but a legal action to monopolize an entire genre — one built around creature collecting, friendship, and cooperation.

The bigger picture? That the company will be heading for a future in which big studios patent not to achieve invention, but to control game design itself.

Nintendo vs. Palworld is not a copyright case. It's a battle about who gets to own the blueprints of game design today. If broad ideas about gameplay can be patented, then the future of game making — and more so for smaller, independent studios — would be in jeopardy.

The outcome of this case will be a message: either that the law is behind open innovation in gaming… or that big studios can own the very essence of how we play.