This is the third part of our “explain it to me like I’m five” series on Nintendo v. Pocketpair (the Pokémon-Palworld patent dispute). In the first two parts, we discussed how it is possible that Nintendo asserts patents for which it applied only after Palworld’s launch (January 23, 2025 games fray article), and why a Japanese patent attorney doubts that Palworld implements the “smooth switching” of riding objects that one of Nintendo’s patents-in-suit relates to (January 26, 2025 games fray article).
We’ll now take a look at the other two patents, which are from the same patent family and have to do with capturing (and fighting) characters in the game.
Nintendo is suing Pocketpair over three patents, but two of them are very similar. In fact, those two go back to the very same original patent application (parent application), but the patent claims (which define the scope of the rights) are phrased differently so as to place the emphasis on different aspects.
If two patents cover the identical technique, one of them will be considered invalid. Double patenting is not allowed.
Those patents have the numbers JP7493117 and JP7545191. For the ‘117 patent (as we explained before, patent professionals often just refer to patents by the last three digits if there is only one patent in a given context that ends with those three digits), the application was filed on February 26, 2024 (the month after Palworld launched). For the ‘191 patent, Nintendo applied more than five month laters (on July 30, 2024).
Like in the previous part of this series, we’ll break up the patent claims (based on a machine translation of the Japanese claims) into different claim limitations. Nintendo must convince the court that Palworld infringes each and every claim limitation. Put differently, in order for Pocketpair to win, it is enough for them to convince the court that there is at least one claim limitation per patent that Palworld does not infringe. As computer programmers would describe it, Nintendo’s challenge is an AND combination of criteria, while Pocketpair’s opportunity is an OR combination (and not an “exclusive or”).
Let’s start with claim 1 of the ‘117 patent:
| (1) A game program which | This is just the broad category of what is claimed. And obviously there is no way to argue that Palworld is not a game program. |
| (2) (2.1) in a first mode, (2.2) causes a computer of an information processing device to determine an aiming direction within a virtual space based on a first operation input which is a directional input, (2.3) and when a second operation input is performed, causes the aiming direction to be directed toward a field character placed on a field in the virtual space and displays a first indicator, (2.4) and based on a third operation input, causes the player character to perform an action of releasing a capture item to capture the field character in the aiming direction, (2.5) and when the capture item hits the field character, causes a capture success determination to be made as to whether the capture is successful, and (2.6) when the capture success determination is judged to be positive, causes the field character hit by the capture item to be set to a state where it is owned by the player, | This looks a bit complicated. The term 2.1 (“first mode”) is made even more confusing by the fact that there is no “second mode” explicitly mentioned. In another patent application from the same faily, one can find a passage relating to a second modein which the player character is launched and starts fighting against a field character. There are three inputs (user actions): first a direction is set (2.2), then one aims at a character and a “first indicator” is displayed, and the third one is to release the character so it will go to fight the field character. If the overall operation is successful, the field character will then belong to the player (captured monster). |
| (3) and the first indicator is information which indicates the ease with which the capture success determination is judged to be positive . | The “first indicator” is the one mentioned at the end of claim limitation 2.3. It’s the probability of actually defeating and thereby capturing the field character. |
The above is just the blend of a game rule with references to three different types of “operational input” (user actions).
Japanese patent attorney Ryo Arashi (firm profile), who has written a few articles (in Japanese) about this dispute, believes that Nintendo wanted to obtain the ‘191 patent, for the purpose of using it against Pocketpair, because it does not reference different “modes.” That may have been the motivation, or at least one major reason.
So let’s take a look at claim 1 of the ‘191 patent, which is (regrettably) even longer:
| (1) A computer which | Again, just a broad category. |
| (2) (2.1) based on an operation input by pressing an operation button, (2.2) causes a player character in a virtual space (2.2.1) to take a stance to release a capture item when a first category group including a plurality of types of capture items for capturing a field character placed on a field in a virtual space is selected, (2.2.2) and to take a stance to release the combat character when a second category group including a plurality of types of combat characters for fighting is selected, | There must be some button click and then the player will select a capture item or a combat character. |
| (3) and determines an aiming direction within the virtual space based on a directional input, | In this step, the player aims in a certain direction. |
| (4) and, based on an operation input by an operation button different from the operation button, causes a player character in the virtual space to take a stance to release the capture item when the first category group is selected, and to release the combat character when the second category group is selected, | Here, depending on whether it is about a capture item or a combat character, the player can release such item or character. |
| (5) (5.1) when the capture item is selected, (5.1.1) the player character is caused to perform an action of releasing the operation button that was pressed when causing the player character to perform the ready action, (5.1.2) the player character is caused to perform an action of releasing the selected capture item in the aiming direction when the capture item is selected, (5.2) and when the combat character is selected, (5.2.1) the player character is caused to perform an action of releasing the selected combat character in the aiming direction when the capture item is released (5.2.2) and hits the field character, | Here again the claim makes a distinction between a capture item (like a Pokéball) and a combat character. The item or character is released in the direction the player has chosen. |
| (6) (6.1) the player character is caused to perform a capture success determination as to whether or not the capture is successful, and (6.2) when the capture success determination is judged to be positive, the field character that was hit by the capture item is set to a state in which it is owned by the player; (6.3) combat character is released to a location where it can fight with the field character, a fight between the combat character and the field character is initiated on the field. | If the character was captured, a simple data operation (such as changing one byte or bit) will take place to mark the captured one was belonging to the player. A combat character just goes to fight the field character at which the player was aiming. |
You may wonder now why they make such trivial concepts sound so complicated. The reason is that Nintendo and The Pokémon Company wanted to make it look like a technical invention when in reality it is just games implemented in obvious ways. For example, setting a character “to a state in which it is owned by the player” is a technical measure that can’t be avoided. Otherwise the computer would “forget” that the character belongs to the player. For decades, games have done that when there were items in a game that could — but did not necessarily — belong to the player.
Long claims that have many elements are a double-edged sword. They help the patentee to differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art and/or to put up smokescreens in order to make something non-technical look technical and, thereby, patent-eligible. Here it may also have played a role that Nintendo wanted to obtain a “capture” type of patent without having to talk about a first mode and a second mode of operation, which Japanese patent attorney Ryo Arashi doesn’t believe Palworld has. But — for a reminder — a defendant needs to find only one claim limitation that it doesn’t practice, and there’s no scope for an infringement finding.
In the next part (or one of the next parts) of this series, we plan to take a look at Nintendo’s patent applications in other jurisdictions, particularly the United States.