For months, we have been learning about all the new patents Nintendo is acquiring, and now we finally know how Palworld plans to defend against them.
Palworld’s Defence Against Nintendo Lawsuit Finally Revealed
As reported by Games Fray, a patent-specialised Japanese lawyer appeared at the Tokyo District Court on their behalf to obtain more details about Palworld’s defence against Nintendo’s ongoing patent infringement lawsuit. Pocketpair has argued invalidity against each patent as well as non-infringement. The developer has also provided games and mods as examples to bolster its defence.
Palworld Argues Invalidity Against Nintendo’s Patents
For those wondering, the Palworld developer has stated that Nintendo was not supposed to be granted the patents due to the existence of “prior art” before the company claimed to have invented said patent. Prior art means any published material, such as patent applications, articles, or games, that exists before the patent’s relevant priority date.
In this situation, more than one piece of prior art is a copy of an existing material; it talks about combining two additional pieces of prior art. The latter discusses it not being an invention when a person comes up with an idea to combine two or more pieces of prior art. In the US, developers must meet a “nonobviousness requirement”; in Europe and Japan, you must take an ‘inventive step’ to get to the combination.
The Palworld developer has provided a list of games and mods as examples of prior art in the lawsuit, featuring notable names such as Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy 14, Far Cry 5, and others. The list also includes several Nintendo titles, such as Pokémon Legends: Arceus, Pokémon Sword and Shield, and Pikmin 3 Deluxe. The developer keeps its Craftopia title as the starting point, stating that combining any prior art with it would prove that the feature existed before Nintendo’s lawsuit.
Patent 1
For patent 1, Palworld developer defends itself against the Nintendo lawsuit by stating Rune Factory 5, Titanfall 2 and Pikmin 3 Deluxe “make it easy to see how a player character can perform an action to release a monster or a capture item (like a ball) and fire in a direction by releasing a button.”
Pikmin 3 Deluxe, Far Cry 5, and Tomb Raider already show that “there can be different types of throwable objects.”
Pocket Souls, Octopath Traveller, and Final Fantasy XIV help players understand how they select teams in the field and indicate the chances of success for the current operation.
Patent 2
For patent 2, the Palworld developer argues invalidity by referencing Pocket Souls, a Dark Souls 3 mod, as the starting point, stating that you could combine it with Octopath Traveler, Monster Super League, Nexomon, Craftopia, Pikmin 3 Deluxe, and Nukamon for Fallout or Monster Hunter 4G to get to that point. You could also have a Nukamon mod for Fallout as the starting point and combine it with Craftopia, Pocket Souls, Pokémon Sword, and Pokémon Shield.
Patent 3
For patent 3, which discusses the smooth switching between riding objects, Pocketpair defends itself against Nintendo’s lawsuit by using ARK as the starting point and stating that it does not need to combine it with any other prior art to declare Nintendo’s patent invalid. Or, they can have ArcheAge as the starting point and combine it with ARK, The Legend of Zelda or the Unity Game Engine. Lastly, you can also have Riders of Icarus as the starting point.
Palworld Argues Non-Infringement Against Nintendo’s Lawsuit
The Palworld developer has argued invalidity, which puts them in a better space, as there are no repercussions for infringing invalid patents. However, they still need to argue non-infringement if the validity challenge is unsuccessful. At the same time, players should know that a patent can only be infringed once all of its claim limitations have been infringed.
Palworld and Pokémon Are Not the Same Genre
Pocketpair first argues that Pokémon and Palworld are not from the same genre. Pokémon is a role-playing game, and Palworld is a survival crafting title. The creatures are the only thing common in both games. The report also states that being from a different genre is not “a legal argument per se”; however, it does help explain the various game mechanics of both games.
Patent 1
Pocketpair argues non-infringement against 4 out of 6 claims in the first patent. The first discussion focuses on running on a computer, which the developer describes as “just a broad category,” and it does not argue that Palworld runs on computers and video game consoles.
Against the second claim, Pocketpair states, “that the claim language means there is one operation button for this purpose (releasing a captured item or a combat character), but in Palworld, this is not a common button operation: it’s about different button operations.”
For another limitation of the second claim, Pocketpair also argues that Palworld “does not clearly distinguish between combat and non-combat states.” Lastly, Nintendo’s patent discusses selecting a first- or second-category group, and Palworld does not feature such a selection.
For claim number 4, which talks about releasing a captured item in the first category and a combat character in the second category, the Palworld developer defends itself by stating, ‘Depending on whether it is about a captured item or a combat character, the player can release such item or character.’
For claim number 5, which references a player character being caused to perform an action, Pocketpair defends itself by stating that this should be interpreted as the combat character going and collecting objects on behalf of the player character; however, ‘Pals don’t actually do that.’
Patent 2
In the second patent, Pocketpair argues non-infringement concerning two out of three claims. In the first claim, which references a “game program,” the Palworld developer defends itself by calling it a “broad category” and adding that it cannot be argued that “Palworld is not a game program.”
In the second claim, which talks about having a first mode with a category of multiple capture items and a second mode with a category of various combat characters, Pocketpair argues that Palworld doesn’t do that and references an article from February 2025, which talks about Nintendo acquiring this patent “for the purpose of using it against Pocketpair”.
In another limitation for the second claim, Pocketpair defends itself by stating that “the way Nintendo describes it, it must be a function that serves as a substitute for directional input”. However, Palworld uses the LT button, which is “not used to determine an aiming direction”.
Patent 3
In the third and final patent, the Palworld developer argues non-infringement concerning three out of four claims. The third patent concerns smooth switching between riding objects.
The first claim concerns selecting a boarding character and providing them with boarding instructions, which enables the character to board without further input. Palworld defends itself against Nintendo’s claim by stating that players cannot board a character in their game without using further input.
For the fourth claim, Pocketpair stated that Nintendo’s claim “refers to flying characters that can be boarded”. However, in Palworld, players cannot select “such characters for the purpose of boarding them”.
In other news, Palworld on the Nintendo Switch 2 is a possibility if the console is “beefy enough”. What are your thoughts on the Palworld developer’s defence against Nintendo’s patent infringement lawsuit? Let us know in the comments or on our new community forum!
For more information from Insider Gaming, read about Bungie providing a major update for Marathon’s closed alpha. Don’t forget to sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Comments
Array