Nintendo Strikes Again: Has This Gone Too Far?

Key Takeaways

• Nintendo and The Pokémon Company received a US patent for character summoning and dual battle mechanics — the same core loop present in Pokémon Scarlet and Violet.
• The patent originated in Japan in 2022, was filed in the US in March 2023, and covers player free movement, character summoning, and automatic-versus-manual battle mode selection.
• Palworld already removed a contested feature after Nintendo challenged it in Japanese court; US enforcement of the same patent becomes possible if Nintendo wins in Japan.
• Patent lawyer Kirk Sigman called the approval an "embarrassing failure" of the examination system, citing insufficient prior-art review of titles like Elden Ring and Diablo II.
• The US Patent Office carries over 1.2 million pending applications; limited examiner budgets reduce the depth of prior-art searches on game-mechanic filings.
• If the Japan case goes Nintendo's way, the mechanic of freely moving through a world and summoning a character into combat becomes legally restricted territory in both markets.

Those six points capture where this issue stands and why it matters for the industry.

Nintendo's Controversial Patents in Gaming

A headline caught the gaming community by surprise: Nintendo, along with The Pokémon Company, successfully obtained a US patent for a game mechanic involving character summoning and battles. This mechanic, familiar to any seasoned gamer, is reminiscent of features found in titles like Elden Ring, Shin Megami Tensei, Final Fantasy, and World of Warcraft. Nintendo has managed to secure legal ownership through a flawed patent system, setting the stage for potential legal battles.

The Complexities and Implications

This patent didn't just appear out of the blue; it originated as a Japanese patent in 2022 before the US filings were completed in March 2023, finally being granted last year. The specifics of this patent are especially important — although initially confusing, they directly relate to mechanics found in the latest Pokémon games, specifically Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. Here's a brief breakdown of what the patent covers:

1. Player Movement and Summoning: The system allows a player to move freely in the game world and summon a character.
2. Dual Battle Modes: If a summoned character encounters an enemy, a battle ensues in either an automatic or player-controlled mode.
3. Use of Existing Mechanics: Various existing US and Japanese patents were referenced during the filing.

These three elements — free movement, summoning, and dual battle modes — form the legal core of Nintendo's claim, and they're present in many games released years before this patent was filed.

📌 The strongest counter to Nintendo's patent is prior art, and the gaming community already identified the clearest candidates: Elden Ring (2022), Diablo II (2000), and the Persona series (2006 onward). None were cited by the US examiner. Patent challenges built around these titles — specifically the Necromancer's summon-and-attack loop in Diablo II — have the best chance of triggering a re-examination. Developers watching this case should document their games' summon mechanics carefully and build a timeline that predates Nintendo's 2022 Japan filing.

The Broader Context

Nintendo's legal strategy doesn't end here. They've been actively pursuing similar patents and are involved in legal disputes, notably with Palworld in Japan. The possibility of these patents affecting the broader gaming market is real, particularly if Nintendo decides to leverage them in the US.

• Palworld has already removed a feature Nintendo challenged.
• If Nintendo wins in Japan, future game features may be suppressed in the US.

A table illustrating examples of games potentially affected, based on current knowledge:

The range of games that could be caught by this filing is broad, and developers are watching the Japan case closely to understand the US risk.

Concerns with the Patent System

Beyond Nintendo's tactics, this situation highlights significant issues within the patent system itself. Patent lawyer Kirk Sigman, whose analysis was covered by Ars Technica, argues such a combination of existing mechanics should not be patentable, labeling it an "embarrassing failure" of the system. The root of the problem lies in:

• Lack of thorough challenge processes.
• Insufficient examination of prior art.
• A staggering backlog in the US patent office with over 1.2 million applications pending.

Understanding and referencing previous games remains a challenge, exacerbated by budget cuts and limited resources for examiner hiring, which impacts the thoroughness of patent reviews. Nintendo's new patents and the process by which they were granted cast a spotlight on systemic issues within intellectual property law as it applies to gaming. As the situation develops, the gaming industry must navigate these legal waters carefully, keeping an eye on how such patents could shape the landscape in unforeseen ways.

✏️ Indie developers who build games with summoning, companion AI, or open-world creature capture mechanics should consult a patent attorney now — before launch, not after. The cost of a freedom-to-operate opinion (typically $2,000–5,000) is far lower than the cost of a redesign or settlement after a patent challenge. Document your development timeline, your inspiration sources, and any prior-art games you specifically referenced during design. That paper trail matters more than people expect.

Impact of Patent Practices on Game Development

The approach of granting patents without preemptively denying those that are potentially unfounded places the burden of proof on others. This systemic issue requires challengers to invest time, money, and legal expertise, especially when facing formidable opponents like Nintendo, whose legal team is renowned in the industry. The consequence of such a system is twofold:

1. Intimidation Effect: The mere existence of a patent can deter others from exploring similar ideas. For instance, no one can innovate on Pokémon Scarlet and Violet's dual combat system without facing potential legal challenges from Nintendo.
2. Control over Innovation: While patent systems are designed to protect innovations, they can also allow companies to monopolize certain mechanics. By accumulating patents, companies like Nintendo create a protective moat around their innovations. This practice is common among major Japanese companies, such as Capcom, Sega, and Konami, which consider it essential for safeguarding their research and development investments. These practices can discourage genuine innovation and inspiration in the gaming industry. Developers may shy away from pursuing ideas similar to patented concepts, fearing legal repercussions. Even in the absence of court victories, the threat of a patent can be sufficient to influence creative decisions.

Both effects compound over time, creating a landscape where legal strategy increasingly shapes what games get made.

The Broader Implications

Overall, this dynamic reveals a concentrated power in the hands of larger companies and presents challenges for smaller developers. It is part of a broader trend where companies protect and expand their influence within the industry. While patents can certainly protect innovation, they also have the potential to stifle creativity by imposing barriers for others attempting to build upon established ideas.

Effects of Patent Practices

Such systemic issues impact how new game mechanics are developed and shared, posing a dilemma between protecting intellectual property and fostering an environment conducive to broad-based innovation.

⚠️ The intimidation effect is already working without any court verdict. Several indie studios have publicly stated they are redesigning companion-summon systems in response to Nintendo's filing — not because they received a legal threat, but because the risk calculus for a small studio facing Nintendo's legal budget is too unfavorable to ignore. A patent doesn't need to be enforced to change what games get made. The chilling effect begins the moment the filing appears in public databases.

Last reviewed 2026-06-14 — Maintained by WowCarry's gaming team.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly did Nintendo patent?

Nintendo and The Pokémon Company patented a game system that combines player free movement in a game world, the ability to summon a character, and a dual battle mode where combat can be automatic or player-controlled. The patent was filed in Japan in 2022 and granted in the US in 2024.

Which games could be affected by Nintendo's summoning patent?

Games that feature summoning mechanics and flexible combat modes are potentially in scope — including Elden Ring (Ashes of War summons), the Diablo series (Necromancer summons), and the Persona series (Persona summoning and automatic battles). Whether Nintendo chooses to enforce outside Pokémon is a separate legal question.

How did Palworld respond to Nintendo's legal challenge?

Palworld, developed by Pocketpair, removed a specific feature after Nintendo challenged it in a Japanese lawsuit. The case is ongoing in Japan; the outcome will influence whether Nintendo pursues similar claims in the US.

Why did the US Patent Office approve this patent?

The US Patent Office carries over 1.2 million pending applications and examiner budgets have faced cuts, reducing the depth of prior-art searches. Patent lawyer Kirk Sigman described the approval as an "embarrassing failure" of the examination system, arguing the combined mechanics were not novel.

Is Nintendo's patent enforceable against games released before 2022?

Patent law generally does not allow retroactive enforcement against products already on the market before the patent was filed, but it can restrict new features added to existing titles and future games. Legal challenges are possible, but costly and slow.

What is prior art and why does it matter here?

Prior art is any earlier work — game, patent, or publication — that demonstrates a claimed invention already existed. If sufficient prior art had been identified during examination, the patent should have been denied. Elden Ring, Diablo II, and the Persona series all represent possible prior art, but none were cited by the examiner.