This is the second part of our “explain it to me like I’m five” series on Nintendo v. Pocketpair (the Pokémon-Palworld patent dispute). In the first part (January 23, 2025 games fray article), we focused on what has many gamers puzzled: how can Nintendo sue Pocketpair over patents for which it applied after Palworld’s launch? If you’ve read that part, you’ve learned certain patent law terms such as “priority date” and “divisional patent application,” and you know that there is an “IP Lingo” glossary (or dictionary) on this website where such terms are explained. You can click on underlined terms to get a short explanation. If you haven’t read the first part, you don’t have to do it now: this second part doesn’t depend on it.
Japanese patent attorney Ryo Arashi (firm profile) took an interest in Nintendo’s patent attack on Palworld early on. He looked for Japanese patents that Nintendo might be asserting. Nintendo sued in a Japanese court, so it was clear that they needed Japanese patents. “Japanese patent” doesn’t mean that it necessarily belongs to a Japanese company, but that it was granted by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and, as a result, is enforceable in Japan.
Mr. Arashi had a high hit rate. Wenn Pocketpair made the numbers of the patents-in-suit known, it turned out that all of the actual patents-in-suit were among the ones he had speculated about. He discussed them in a November 8, 2024 article.
In the first part of this series. we looked into how JP7528390 came into being. That patent relates to a “smooth” switching mechanism for a character in a virtual environment between, say, a flying object (like a bird) and a riding object on the ground (like a horse) or one in the water (like a dolphin). The title (“Game program, game system, information processing device, and information processing method”) is much more more general than that, but as we discussed, “the name of the game is the claim”: it’s the patent claims that define the scope of a patent. Everything else may help a court to resolve ambiguities about the claims, but the claims are key.
If Mr. Arashi is right again (just like he was quite right about the patents Nintendo would choose for its lawsuit over Palworld), then it is doubtful that Palworld infringes this patent. He looked at the broadest claim (claim 1 in this case, and actually in most cases). Now, the English machine translation of that claim is really difficult to read, so don’t even try to understand it for now. Just to show you what it looks like (and then we’ll discuss):
A game program which causes a computer of an information processing device to control a player character within a virtual space based on an operational input,
and when one of a plurality of types of boarding characters that the player character can board is selected from the characters owned by the player character and a boarding instruction is given, has the player character board the selected boarding character and make it mobile,
and when a first operational input is given while the player character is in the air, has the player character board an airborne boarding character among the boarding characters that can move in the air and make it mobile in the air,
and while the player character is boarding the airborne boarding character, moves the player character boarding the airborne character in the air based on the operational input.
Even without reading it in detail, you can see that there are four blocks, and they are connected by the word “and” (three times). This means the patent claim is infringed only if each and every one of the four blocks is present in Palworld.
We’ll now do a simplified version of a so-called claim chart, which means that we look at the patent claim on the left side and discuss on the right side whether the part on the left is found in Palworld.
| (1) A game program which causes a computer of an information processing device to control a player character within a virtual space based on an operational input, | The first block tells us that the patent claim covers a game program which (unsurprisingly) runs on a computer and where a game character (“player character”) exists within a virtual space and is controlled based on an operational input (which could be a keyboard and/or a game controller, or whatever else). Conclusion: All of that applies to Palworld, as it does to countless other games (for instance, Fortnite). The patent still has to recite those technical elements (hardware and software) because a patent application that refers only to a virtual space without any hardware and software reference would be rejected for lack of patent-eligible subject matter. |
| (2) (2.1) and when (2.1.1) one of a plurality of types of boarding characters that the player character can board (2.1.2) is selected from the characters owned by the player character (2.1.3) and a boarding instruction is given, | So there must be multiple (“plurality of”) types of boarding characters (characters on which the player character can ride), and which can be among the ones “owned” by the player characters. A selection of one of them is made, and a boarding instruction (by controller or keyboard) is given. |
| (2.2) (2.2.1) has the player character board the selected boarding character (2.2.2) and make it mobile, | The player character is now basically mounted on the boarding character, and it sets the boarding character in motion. It may sound simple, but what we must consider is that in patent infringement any of those claim limitations can give rise to debate. For example, if a character is already mobile, the player character does not “make it mobile.” |
| (3) (3.1) and when (3.1.1) a first operational input is given (3.1.2) while the player character is in the air, (3.2) has the player character (3.2.1) board an airborne boarding character among the boarding characters that can move in the air (3.2.2) and make it mobile in the air, | This is now the part that Mr. Arashi considers most important. It says that there is an action by the player with a keyboard or controller, and the player character, which already is in the air then boards another (the word “another” or “different” is not found, but it must be something other than the “owned” character selected before) character on which it can ride. |
| (4) (4.1) and while the player character is boarding the airborne boarding character, (4.2) moves the player character boarding the airborne character in the air based on the operational input. | This part was not highlighted by Mr. Arashi. It basically says that the player character is moved (with the controller or a controller-keyboard combination) during the boarding process. |
Mr. Arashi thinks this amounts to “smooth switching”: the character instantly and seamlessly switches from one character on which it is riding to another on which it will then be riding. And he does not feel that it works like that in Palworld, where a character can board another riding object before (and instead of) hitting the ground first.
If Pocketpair makes the argument that Mr. Arashi expects them to make (that the switching is not smoot and instant), then how will the Japanese court decide whether Nintendo or Pocketpair is right?
It is a two-step process. The first is for the court to understand what each of the relevant terms or passages means. That process is called claim construction (the latter in the sense of “to construe” (to interpret), not “to construct” (to build)). The court will look at what the claims say, but will also interpret the claims in light of, primarily, the description and drawings.
Based on what generally happens in such disputes, one could imagine that Pocketpair’s lawyers would tell the court that the patent claim covers only a direct switching from one riding object to another, while Nintendo might argue that the claim does not rule out that other things happen in between, such as that the character could temporarily be in free fall.
We are not going to take a position on that here. It’s just about explaining what will decide the dispute.
Based on the claim construction (interpretation) the court adopts, it will then compare what Palworld does to what the court’s understanding of the patent claim is.
Mr. Arashi’s theory about the switching not being smooth and instant is an interesting one. It may very well be one of Pocketpair’s arguments, and against this patent, it may even be its strongest argument. But Pocketpair could also dispute other claim limitations. The challenge for the patent holders (here, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company) is that if there is just the smallest thing that the claim requires and the court concludes Palworld doesn’t do, then this patent will not be deemed infringed. And if something like that happened to each of the three patents-in-suit, Nintendo would lose the entire case.
Over time we may (or may not) find out more about the parties’ arguments. At the latest we will get an idea when there is a court ruling. For now, it’s really just about getting an idea of what the dispute relates to.
All three of Nintendo’s patents-in-suit are game rule patents. In the case of JP’390 (the one we just discussed), it’s particularly striking that it covers an abstract concept. If someone invented a solution in the physical world for jumping safely, smoothly and quickly from, say, a car onto a plane, that would be enormous. But in a virtual environment, there is no actual gravity that complicates thing (if anything, it is just a simulated one, and the simulation can easily be disabled or modified by some program instructions).
A concept like that of a player character “owning” a boarding character just means that a computer program keeps a simple collection of characters. There is nothing technically difficult about that once you have a virtual environment. Still, those patents were granted and Pocketpair has to defend itself against all three. We’ll talk about the other two in the next part of this series. The other two are closely related, like two variants of essentially the same idea.