Anyone who is invested in video games would likely be familiar with the ongoing legal battle between Pocketpair, the developer behind Palworld, and Nintendo. The latter has accused Palworld of infringing on at least three patents, demanding compensation and the removal of the game from distribution. Pocketpair, however, is pushing back. Their argument? The patents Nintendo is relying on are not valid.
According to a report by GamesFray, Pocketpair contends that the mechanics and systems cited in Nintendo’s complaint had already existed in the gaming industry well before Nintendo registered their patents in 2024.
Pocketpair claims that Nintendo is not the original inventor of the systems in question and therefore should not be granted exclusive rights to them. As such, these patents should not be considered a valid basis for legal action in this case.
The games referenced as examples include Rune Factory 5, Titanfall 2, and Pikmin 3 Deluxe, which all feature systems that make it easy for players to understand how a character can release a monster or a capturing item (like a ball) and aim it in a specific direction simply by releasing a button.
Furthermore, titles such as Pikmin 3 Deluxe, Far Cry 5, and Tomb Raider have already demonstrated gameplay concepts involving various throwable objects. Others, like Pocket Souls, Octopath Traveler, Monster Super League, and Final Fantasy XIV, also help illustrate how players can target enemies on the field and display indicators for the likelihood of a successful capture.
The core idea of variable capture items with differing success rates has also been a staple of the Pokémon series for over 30 years. In addition, Pocketpair points out that their older title, Craftopia, had already implemented several of these mechanics prior to Nintendo’s patent submissions. They also highlighted Nintendo’s apparent indifference to similar concepts appearing in popular game mods like Pocket Souls and Pokémon ARK.
The legal defence mounted by Pocketpair on behalf of Palworld has now been submitted to the Tokyo District Court, where the case remains ongoing. Whether this will result in something favourable is still to be determined, but at the very least, it won’t be a one-sided battle.
