The Palworld Lawsuit Is Worse Than You Think

Nintendo has filed a Patent Infringement lawsuit, claiming Palworld is using 'game mechanics or systems' they own the patent to. We'll see where this all lands in court, but generally speaking, I hate this and think it's awful for the industry.

[kevinbergen]

As someone with nine years of experience and counting in the IP/patent-space (US and international, both in litigation and preparation and prosecution of patent applications) I feel compelled to say a few things despite knowing the comments section I'm about to say them in. Also, apologies in advance for a wall of text.

The main patent in this suit, Japanese Patent 2021-208275, was filed Dec. 22, 2021. The Japanese base priority on filing date, so Japanese 2021-208275 also has Dec. 22, 2021 as its priority date. Other patents in suit, e.g., Japanese 2023-0191255 and US20240278129 come to mind, are continuations (or children) of Japanese 2021-208275 (the parent). And while some of the children asserted in this suit, particularly US20240278129, may have been filed after the release of Palworld, they all claim priority back to the parent, so they too all have a priority date of Dec. 22, 2021. However, the ability of child patents to claim priority back to the parent does come at a cost of shorter lifespan of the children. For example, if a parent patent was filed June 1, 2019 and a child was filed June 1, 2024, the child would have priority of June 1, 2019 with an expiration of June 1, 2039 rather than June 1, 2044.

Now, if you review these patents, they are directed toward the new systems (an entire engine, really) of battling and capturing introduced in Pokemon Legends Arceus (or “PLA, ” which released January 28, 2022) and implemented in subsequently released main-line Pokemon games such as Scarlet and Violet (or “S&V, ” which released November 18, 2022) - basically the throwing of a Pokeball, capturing of a Pokemon, battling normal Pokemon, battling boss Pokemon, and sending out/recalling a Pokemon in a 3D space. As some examples, 2023-0191255 has claims directed toward/provides technical specifications on: increasing capture rate/capture success chance as the target Pokemon/boss Pokemon takes damage, displaying a capture success indicator, different types of Pokeball/capture devices having different base capture success rates, claims for what is effectively the Paldex, establishing an aiming direction for a Pokeball when attempting to capture a Pokemon and when releasing a Pokemon onto the field, there's even a claim for the Pokeball returning to the trainer's hand after successfully capturing the target Pokemon/boss Pokemon. Palworld, which was released on January 19, 2024, meaning Palworld was released over two years after the priority date of the Japanese parent, just under 2 years after the release of PLA, and approx.14 months after the release of S&V. I have to be honest, it sure seems like Palworld implements a lot of these systems. And I can't help but find it funny how there was conversation around how blatantly and obviously Palworld copied Pokemon, but now that Nintendo is defending one of its main IPs, one of the most successful IPs in history, people are up in arms.

Yes, prior art and invalidity come into play here, as they do with every patent suit. However, prior art landscape seems pretty barren (even if games older than Pokemon implement similar ideas, it's irrelevant unless they have a patent for it and choose to enforce), and through the magic of computer-readable medium (or CRM) claims and a fairly robust specification, there are don't seem to be any glaringly obvious validity issues.

Next, to clarify what rights (really singular right) patents grant patent holders -- patents grant an exclusive right to exclude others from practicing the disclosed invention. That right to exclude comes at the cost of a complete disclosure of the invention containing sufficient technical detail to enable any person of ordinary skill in the art to re-create the disclosed invention 1:1. This level of transparency is intended to promote innovation, but obviously raises concerns of people ripping off what you disclosed, hence the right to exclude.

Finally, to address Force’s points that games won’t be able to release with patented systems until existing patents expire – that is simply not true. If a similar or even identical system/mechanic/engine is released with a substantially different technical implementation and/or is implemented in a technically superior way, then there is NOT infringement. Part of the point of requiring complete and thorough disclosures in order to obtain a patent is to promote this kind of iteration and technical improvement throughout the industry. Sure, Nintendo could sue someone who throws traps at monsters in seemingly the same way as is done in PLA/S&V, but if the system of capturing in the accused game is technically different (e.g., as explained above), then that game won’t infringe and Nintendo will have wasted time and money. This may well be what happens in this case - as discovery gets awarded and the source code of Palworld gets reviewed, it may come to light that that Palworld does things in a way other than what is patented by Nintendo/in a way that is superior to what is patented by Nintendo. Have to point out that Force is correct in saying that companies could license things in order to use them as is. There’s lots of history of this with, e.g., ICs used in mobile devices, but video games are uncharted territory to this point. But yeah, generally speaking, we could play games with something akin to the Nemesis system (or load screen minigames, or any other example Force mentioned) from other studios if those studios come up with a technically distinct/superior way of implementing it, or if the studio is willing to license it.

Quick edit: Copy + pasting of source code is not required for infringement. Actually doing so could serve to increase damages, but you can still infringe if 100% of code in your game is unique.

Edit 2: Reading comments that Pocket Pair is claiming development of Palworld began as early as 2020. Generally speaking, simply claiming to work, or even actually working on something in private does not qualify as prior art. Further, "information-kept secret" is generally not considered prior art. However, it seems like printed publications made available to the public (e.g, press releases or demo videos) demonstrating Pocket Pair was working on the systems Nintendo is suing them over could help Pocket Pair. (At least in the US producing such publications would likely serve as prior art in Pocket Pair's favor). Bear in mind, Nintendo is also allowed to dip back into its (absolutely massive) games catalog, catalog of press releases, etc. to find evidence of it implementing these systems in its own games (doesn't have to be a Pokemon game) before whatever date Pocket Pair puts forth.

[jonrainbow]

i remember when i first learned why the nemesis system wasnt EVERYWHERE in games. It felt exactly like the kind of system that would get copied over and over....and ive never been more pissed off at the state of gaming.

[evanmccue]

The "nemesis" system from the LotR games was the top tier ridiculous patent that nailed its own coffin shut...

[Reelix]

Create a patent for "The progression of a character by gaining experience which subsequently leads to levelling up" and sue half the RPG's in existence.

[Asylum_]

I started playing Palworld because there were no pokemon games on pc. If Nintendo shuts down Palworld, I will never buy any Nintendo product for the rest of my life.

[ltcinsane]

WB: We shall hoard this IP and forces others to pay us to use it! *time passes* WB: why hasn't anyone approached us to license our game mechanic?

[coryaustin]

It has to be a running joke in the Japanese legal system like a 9-5 guy who works at the court house says hi to Nintendo every day he goes to work since Nintendo basically lives in the courtroom.

[Wurps]

The whole patent system is just a poorly functioning relic from a different time, it shouldn't have been allowed to work on vague concepts nor be allowed to block progress for an entire generation, a few years at best.

[ladariusholmes]

World: "Hey Warner Bros. That nemesis system is dope. Can we use it?"
WB: NO! It's our idea!
World: Naw, that makes sense. Are you gonna use it again?"

[YdenMk-II]

As an Dynasty Warriors fan, the Capcom vs Koei lawsuit is the one that gets me.Capom won the lawsuit against the Xtreme Legends series of games because they had a patent on “unlocking bonus content when the DVD-ROM of the latest title of a game series is set in a game console, by placing the DVD-ROM of the previous title of the game series into the console.” I don't even know if they used this patent themselves but they effectively got a patent on the concept of expansion discs on PS2.

[CapitalTeeth]

Nintendo suing the country of Italy because people are called Mario and Luigi in it:

[Hammer]

Patents should have a "use it or lose it" clause.

Also, the duration of a patent should be tailored to how long it takes to recuperate r&d costs and to generate profit in that particular industry. So for video games, a 5-10 year period seems the most reasonable. Anything exceeding 15 years is just absurd considering how fast the industry is changing and developing new technologies.

Game mechanic patents, along with multi-platform games, are the main forces slowing down innovation in the gaming industry, in my humble opinion.

I really hope we never end up in a Kessler syndrome situation with patents. Where there are so many gaming related patents being held by large corporations that indie developers are unable to create anything new at all for fear of getting sued into oblivion. I don't know how likely that is, but stupid stuff that shouldn't happen, somehow, happens all the time.

[DynoSkrimisher]

"Game Company patents parries and perfect blocking."

*80% of action games vanish out of existence.*


Also, did Minecraft patent the mechanic of combined two used items to make a version that's fully repaired?

[denrizza]

When a patent is designed to stifle competition, it ALWAYS be questioned.

[SSJ_EWGF]

It's funny how patents are claimed to protect innovation, so that an artist can feel secured that their creation won't be stolen, and yet all they actually achieve in the modern age is corporations abusing it to stifle competition, thus _preventing_ innovation...


Instead of learning from Palworld and improving their own product in Pokémon, Nintendo would rather out sue the competition, so that they don't exist in the first place.



Classic corporate greed everyone👏

[bigdongroma]

Japan had a meme patent that lasted for an year about "the act of weighting meat before selling it to the client", Japan patent office was a damn mistake.

[Nemesis-pemw]

That you can patent game mechanics like this is absolutely ridiculous. Honestly anyone that tries to patent something like this they should get criminally charged. If they try and such a patent they deserve to excommunicated from society as they've proven they cannot be a part of one.

The whole patent system is screwed up and needs to be completely refactored! You should be able to file a patent, that is not the problem. It has to be for something innovative though, it should also not be allowed to be used to block something from existing. If you have a patent and aren't actively making anything that it is based on, then too bad you lose it. If someone wants to use your patent you're obliged to provide them the rights to do so for a realistic price.

[djsyntic]

Conversely, some people don't even try to evolve game mechanics. How many games exist with a fishing mechanic that you could describe this way? "A bar appears vertically or horizontally, and a fish graphic appears on the bar. The fish then moves along that bar while the player moves a box or marker to match the fish's movement. If the player keeps the marker on the fish long enough, they catch it. If too much time passes with the marker not on the fish, the fish escapes."

Or how about the other fishing mini-game that games like to use. Your fishing lure floats in the water until it vibrates or makes a sound. You then press a button and you catch the fish. Wait to long and the fish escapes.

Heck, some even mix both fishing games. Your lure floats in the water until a signal happens, you press a button and the fish bar mini-game starts.

There HAS to be a more interesting fishing game than this, but again, so many games just do something like the above because it's easy and everyone understands how it works.

[cvsnake]

If you look at the Patent, the date it was made was MONTHS after Palworld was launched....

[YoshihitoBLM]

Nintendo is just such a scummy company now. Mechanics should not be able to be patented. I agree things like capturing creatures in balls, if it looks too closely like their designs, should not be allowed. But they don't own and weren't even the first to come up with creature capture mechanics. Hell, humans have been capturing, taming, and riding beasts for millennia. And sleep mechanics? What the hell, are they going to sue humans for sleeping and trying to improve that as well? There's also patents they've filed and were approved long after the release of Palworld. Just scummy tactics all around.