Table of Contents
USPTO Rejects Nintendo’s “Summon and Fight” Patent Claims in Non-Final Decision
The US Patent and Trademark Office has issued a major reversal on Nintendo’s controversial patent covering a mechanic broadly described as summoning a character and having it fight. As reported by Games Fray, after a reexamination, the USPTO has now rejected all claims tied to the patent, effectively dismantling the grant that drew industry criticism for being too close to decades of established design.
The key nuance is procedural: this is being reported as a non-final decision, meaning Nintendo still has a window to respond and attempt to overturn the rejection. Even so, it is a significant shift from the earlier approval, and it marks the strongest indication yet that the USPTO views the claims as too similar to existing prior art to stand as a valid exclusive right.
Why the Patent Became a Flashpoint
The backlash was never about Nintendo protecting a specific, narrow implementation. It was about perception. The granted language was widely interpreted as sweeping enough to appear an attempt to claim ownership of a foundational idea that has existed across RPGs, monster battlers, and companion-based combat for years.
That response helped turn the patent into a reputational issue for the USPTO as well. Once public attention landed on how broad the concept appeared, pressure mounted to reassess whether the grant should have happened in the first place.
Prior Art and Rejection of Key Claims
The reexamination outcome reportedly hinges on prior art, including earlier patents that cover comparable systems, as well as filings linked to other major publishers. The USPTO’s rejection of the claims signals that it does not view Nintendo’s patent as sufficiently novel or non-obvious when stacked against what already existed in the record.
For developers watching from the sidelines, the practical takeaway is that broad “gameplay idea” patents remain difficult to sustain when the claimed concept maps to long-standing, widely used patterns.
What Happens Next
Nintendo has a defined response period to contest the rejection, typically around two months, with options to request extensions depending on the process. If Nintendo chooses to respond, the outcome could still change before anything becomes final.
That is why it is better to treat this as a serious setback rather than a closed case. The patent is under heavy pressure, but the path forward depends on whether Nintendo argues for amended claims, provides counter-evidence, or pursues an appeal route.
For now, though, the USPTO’s move sends a clear message: overly broad attempts to lock down common mechanics face strong resistance once formal scrutiny and prior art comparisons are applied.
