Since the appointment of USPTO Director John A. Squires, the intellectual property world has seen some changes, but his latest move has caught everyone’s attention. The USPTO ordered for Nintendo patent re-examination, a major decision that could impact the gaming giant’s legal battles. Adding to the drama, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) has also rejected a related Nintendo patent application connected to the ongoing Palworld dispute with developer Pocketpair Inc.. With both U.S. and Japanese authorities taking bold steps, this case is heading in an unexpected direction. Keep reading to find out how this twist is shaping the latest IP news in the gaming world.
What Led to the USPTO Re-Examining Nintendo’s Gameplay Patent?
To understand why the USPTO decided to take another look at Nintendo patent re-examination, we first need to see how this whole thing kicked off. It started when Nintendo filed a patent for a gameplay feature that lets players summon sub-characters to join battles — something we’ve seen in many of their games. But that’s where the drama began. The patent’s broad coverage raised eyebrows because it seemed to overlap with features already used by other developers, like Pocketpair Inc., the team behind Palworld. Pocketpair wasn’t too happy about it and accused Nintendo of trying to claim ownership over ideas that weren’t entirely new, even comparing them to Pokémon-style mechanics.
Things really heated up when the Japan Patent Office (JPO) rejected Nintendo patent re-examination, saying similar concepts already existed and the idea lacked real innovation. After that, Nintendo took things to the United States, aiming to protect the same invention there as well — and they initially succeeded in securing patent approval. However, not long after, the situation took a turn when USPTO Director John A. Squires ordered a re-examination of the patent.
Read Also: USPTO Launches Two New Pilot Programs to Speed Up Patent Examination and Boost AI Integration
Why Did the USPTO Order a Nintendo patent re-examination?
The USPTO decided to take another look at Nintendo’s gameplay patent after spotting a few red flags that raised questions about how original and valid it really was.
- According to reports, USPTO Director John A. Squires found what he called “substantial new questions of patentability” in several parts of the patent.
- The main reason? The discovery of prior art — older patents and technologies that already described similar gameplay features.
- These included a 2002 Konami patent (known as the Yabe patent) and even a 2019–2020 Nintendo patent (called the Taura patent), both covering systems where players could summon or control secondary characters in a game.
- Basically, this made it seem like Nintendo’s newer patent might not be as unique as it first appeared. On top of that, the USPTO was also concerned that the patent’s scope was too broad, possibly overlapping with common mechanics already used across the gaming industry.
Conclusion
The Nintendo patent re-examination has become a major talking point in both the gaming and intellectual property worlds. With the USPTO re-examining the patent and the Japan Patent Office already rejecting a similar filing, the case highlights how tricky it can be to protect creative ideas in such a competitive industry. The final outcome could set an important precedent for how gameplay mechanics are patented and defended in the future, shaping the balance between innovation, originality, and fair competition in gaming.
Read Also: WIPO GREEN Appoints Angela Pinhati as Ambassador for Brazil to Drive Sustainable Innovation