If you need help with the patent law terminology in this article, please click on the articles listed in Context to get the procedural background. You can find hyperlinks to our dictionary-style definitions there.
Context:
- The ongoing Nintendo v. Pocketpair (Pokémon v. Palworld) patent litigation in Japan is a dead lawsuit walking (June 11, 2026 games fray article).
- Presumably with Palworld Mobile in the crosshairs, Nintendo is trying to obtain a Japanese monster-capturing patent with a touchscreen focus. But the first reaction by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) was negative (May 14, 2026 games fray article).
What’s new: The JPO has gone from a first warning to a final examination decision. In rejecting the application once again (and now at a more advanced procedural stage), the JPO gave short shrift to Nintendo’s argument that an indie gameplay video, which allegedly infringed Pokémon-related copyrights, was ineligible as prior art.
Direct impact: This “decision of refusal” terminates regular patent examination. The patent examiner is done with this. Nintendo has three months to request a formal appeal trial before a panel of JPO administrative judges. It could also try a new divisional application, hoping that a modified claim language fares better. And Nintendo could simply give up on this application.
Wider ramifications: The JPO demonstrates its commitment to patent quality by not granting outrageous “game rule” type of patent applications. It also clarifies that copyright infringement allegations are misplaced when the only question is whether an invention is novel and has an inventive step over the prior art. The related gameplay video is available on YouTube, and for the purpose of patent law it serves its purpose of demonstrating the existence of certain concepts at a particular point in time.
Here’s the English version of the decision:
Note that for claims 4–5, 10–11, 16–17, and 22–23, the examiner did not find any particular reasons for rejection at this stage. However, Nintendo pursued the entire claim set, forcing the JPO to make a binary decision. A divisional application could incorporate the substance of those claims into a new patent application (a divisional application). But then the JPO would probably make more of an effort to find (or third parties might submit) prior art to take down those claims.
Last Friday, Palworld 1.0 officially launched. Nintendo presently doesn’t appear to have a single patent in its portfolio that could pose a threat to Palworld 1.0.