Japan Patent Office Rejects Nintendo Pokémon-Style Gameplay Patent

In a notable development in global patent practice, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) has rejected a patent application filed by Nintendo Co., Ltd. covering a gameplay mechanic similar to the iconic Pokémon capture system. The decision highlights the rigorous standards applied in patent examination and carries broader implications for intellectual property enforcement in the gaming industry.

 

Background

In March 2024, Nintendo submitted a patent application (JP 2024-031879) in Japan relating to a game mechanic that allows a player to aim and throw an object to capture or affect a character or creature in a virtual environment. The mechanic closely resembles the Poké Ball capture system used across Pokémon titles.

The application forms part of a wider portfolio of patents that Nintendo is asserting against Pocketpair Inc., the developer of Palworld, in litigation alleging patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in the Tokyo District Court in September 2024, seeks to enforce alleged rights over several gameplay mechanics implemented in Palworld.

 

In October 2025, the JPO issued a Notice of Reasons for Refusal, rejecting the application on the grounds that it lacks an “inventive step”. Under patent law, this requirement demands that an invention be sufficiently novel and non-obvious to a person skilled in the relevant technical field.

The examiner cited extensive prior art, including gameplay elements from ARK: Survival Evolved, Monster Hunter 4, Craftopia, Kantai Collection and even Pokémon GO. The existence of these earlier systems undermined Nintendo’s claim that the mechanic was novel and not obvious.

Non-final rejection and Nintendo’s options

The refusal is non-final, and Nintendo retains several procedural options. These include amending the claims to address the examiner’s concerns, submitting additional evidence or arguments to counter the cited prior art, or appealing the decision to Japan’s Intellectual Property High Court.

Nintendo has a statutory period—typically 60 days from the notice—to respond, meaning the examination and any subsequent appeal could extend well into 2026.

Implications for the Palworld lawsuit

Although the rejected application is distinct from the specific patents currently asserted in the Palworld litigation, it belongs to the same patent family and serves as a structural link to other filings central to the dispute. If the refusal is upheld, it could offer strategic leverage to Pocketpair’s defence.

While Japanese courts are not legally bound by administrative decisions of the patent office, judges often take examination findings into account when assessing validity and infringement. A rejection based on lack of inventive step may therefore influence judicial perceptions of Nintendo’s broader patent claims.

Broader significance for patent practice

The decision highlights several key aspects of patent law. First, the requirement of an inventive step remains central to patentability, ensuring that protection is granted only for genuine technological advances rather than combinations of known elements. Second, prior art can play a decisive role, with competitors and third parties able to challenge applications effectively. Finally, it underscores the importance of careful patent strategy in complex fields such as software and game design, where claim drafting must clearly distinguish new ideas from established practices.

Industry reaction and critique

The refusal has prompted discussion among IP professionals and industry observers. Some argue that patenting gameplay mechanics -- particularly those that may be viewed as abstract or derivative -- raises concerns about the appropriate scope of patent protection in creative industries. Others stress that robust drafting is essential if such patents are to withstand scrutiny from both patent offices and rivals.

Conclusion

The JPO’s refusal of Nintendo’s Pokémon-style gameplay patent underscores the strict application of inventive step and prior art requirements in patent examination. Although non-final, the decision represents a procedural setback and may carry implications beyond administrative proceedings, particularly in the ongoing Palworld litigation. For innovators and IP practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between protecting creative systems and meeting stringent patentability standards.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.