Patent World | A Lawyer's Take on Nintendo vs PalWorld

Uh oh, PalWorld's been sued by Nintendo, but not for the reasons the Internet thought. Just what is a patent anyway? How is it different from a copyright? And just how much does a patent suit in Japan differ from one in the US anyway?

It's well past time to talk about poke-patents...in Virtual Legality.

***
SUMMARY
Lawyer Richard Hoeg (Hoeg Law) provides an in-depth analysis of Nintendo's lawsuit against PocketPair, focusing on the legal intricacies of patent infringement claims. He revisits the background of Palworld and explores international and Japanese patent law implications on the case. Richard dissects the differences between trademark, patent, and copyright protection, and speculates on PocketPair's legal response and strategy. The episode explores the risks associated with evoking established brands, the role of patent functions, and the potential impact on game releases. Concluding with viewer comments and a discussion on Nintendo's motives, Hoeg offers insights into the broader implications for the gaming industry.

KEY POINTS
- Nintendo's lawsuit against Pocket Pair for patent infringement on Palworld suggests a narrower issue of specific game mechanics rather than broader copyright claims.

- Patents protect inventions and specific processes, unlike copyrights that cover creative works, which means Nintendo must prove Palworld infringes on their exact patented mechanics.

- The case highlights the importance of understanding the differences between types of intellectual property and how they can be leveraged in legal disputes within the gaming industry.

CHAPTERS
0:00 Introduction and Overview of Nintendo's Lawsuit Against PocketPair
13:19 PocketPair's Response and Legal Strategy
37:42 Adjustments to Avoid Infringement; Journalistic Speculations
47:12 Proving Patent Infringement
59:13 Miscellaneous: Settlements, Weekend Plans, and Board Games
1:01:06 Game Mechanics, Patents, and Software Expression
1:04:25 Closing Remarks and Legal Disclaimer

***

SUPPORTING THE CHANNEL


***
"Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law).

CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE:

DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL.

PODCAST PAGE

[Dair]

Going off this, how would someone even make a monster capturing game without Nintendo going after them? Seems like a monopoly on this genre, which then can never get improved on. It's like if COD patented the HUD for their games, so no 1st person shooters could have a HUD, that would kill the entire genre.

[KPX]

Regardless i still feel putting patent for game mechanic soo simple like the mere concept of aiming and capture is detrimental to the industry. A lot of game mechanic is derive from older/other game and nintendo also uses them.

[wazmanshow]

Good to see you back and commenting on interesting legal media. I look forward to listening to "Star wars leads the way" when i have some time.

[INeedTogepi]

Pirate Software pointed out that Pocket Pair released a game called Craftopia in 2020 that has the same monster catching mechanic but with pyramids instead of spheres.

[Kalysta]

Thanks Hoeg! It's a shame no one is saying exactly WHAT the patent is they're suing about!

[IntoxicusFreeman]

Pokemon in a Pokeball is an extension of the fictional "genie in a bottle trope"

[moosevelt]

I think part of the reason why a lot of people feel invested in this story is because Pokémon games feel kind of stale and not innovative, and needs competition to be pushed forward, and moreover has spawned indie devs to create games that invoke the Pokémon vibes with new and funs spins. If Nintendo/Pokémon Company somehow wins a patent case that prevents others from creating these titles, games like Cassette Beasts and Monster Crown, then it would be a blow to these fans/devs who want more out of this general type of game experience.
I, and I expect many others, would hope that Nintendo doesn't win on the basis of a broad patent being upheld, especially when there's a mountain of games to look through and say "catching and fighting monsters" isn't a unique idea (if that's the patent in question, hypothetically speaking). But like you mentioned, it's probably gonna be more specific than that, so maybe there's a positive outcome waiting.
Thanks again Hoeg :)

[ahettinger]

Hey there! Love that you're covering this (even if there's no way I am ever up early enough to watch live!)

[Patrick-twnr]

Thanks for this was waiting to see your take on this matter

[TheTrueDGDgamer]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. In the 1980s, there was a thing called Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters met a ghost in the field. Start a battle with the ghost. Subdue the ghost by trapping it with a trap that had to be thrown in the proximity of the ghost. Based on that proximity, the ghostbuster was likely to capture the ghost and then acquire the ghost. How is this different from a pokeball?

[PXAbstraction]

That thumbnail is just *chef's kiss*!

[timogul]

One thing I find interesting, the game Genshin Impact added a method of capturing animals by aiming and throwing a "net ball" at them, and this came out over a month before Pokemon Arceus did. Now in Genshin you cannot _fight_ with these animals you captured, you can only place them into your player housing as a decoration, but you do "own" them.

[BlahBlahBlahBlah]

Question does it matter that palworld was in development in 2020 and announced in june 2021 on youtube and at a tokyo game show which was before the patent which nintendo patented or filed for it in December 2021.

Also does it matter that craftopia which released in 2020 pocketpairs other game has all the same mechanics?

[LordRazer]

Nintendo isn't just sueing Pocketpair but also Sony because of its partnership. So this isn't going to be as simple as anyone thing's it will be.

This is nothing but a joke to intimidate Nintendo's competition and the die hard fans are to narrow sighted to see how BAD that is for them. Competition is GOOD for consumers!

[brspies]

@17:00 or so - the international agreements there regarding rights to priority and such basically mean we can treat a japanese patent application as a "parent" of a US application, to establish a filing date. The US would still have to examine an application, allow it, and issue a patent for there to be patent protection in the US. So that's why they say "no worldwide patents" - the applications and filing dates can be respected across borders, but the actual property right that comes with the patent itself must be established by each jurisdiction independently. Which is where those small differences in case law and other details become so important.

[justskip]

This is exactly what I have been waiting for since the lawsuit was announced. I'll need to listen to when I have time for this, probably when I am cycling to work and back at monday.

[Masaim]

I came for great analysis, and wasn't disappointed. Great work as always!

[kaligath]

The thing is with the sheer number of patents that nintendo own could it not be constructed that nintendo have essentially a monopoly over a industry and could utilize patent lawsuits as to prevent anyone from being able to create games for the industry due to nintendo could utilize prosecution as a means to keep competitors out of the industry.

Thus would this not be in violation of breaching anti monopoly laws?

[wolfvermillion]

...My head started hurting when it got to reading that part of the patent. I understand it, I think, but ugh.

[marciusnhasty]

If I'm not mistaken, law in Japan is quite big on preventing court of public opinion driven litigation. Meaning it seems very believable to me that a lot of information isn't publicly available before the court rules on allegations.
They do have that thing where one can be guilty for defamation even if your statement was true, as long as you made the statement publicly before the court decided it is true. Japan tends to hold that reporting on exact allegations violates innocent until proven guilty concept. Something like that, not an expert, shooting from distant memory here.