Key Takeaways
- The Japan Patent Office (JPO) rejected Nintendo and The Pokémon Company’s divisional patent application (No. 2026‑019762) for an “in‑game monster‑capturing system.”
- The rejection was based primarily on a 2013 YouTube gameplay video of the indie fangame Pokémon Generations, which the examiner said demonstrated the claimed invention and therefore lacked an inventive step.
- Nintendo’s objections focused on two points: (1) the video depicted copyright‑infringing material, and (2) the examiner should have used cumbersome, non‑trademarked descriptions for game elements.
- The JPO’s examiner firmly stated that copyright infringement is irrelevant to the patentability inquiry and that using the ordinary names (Ash, Pikachu, Poké Ball) does not affect the logical basis for rejection.
- The examiner also dismissed Nintendo’s argument that a mere video cannot disclose technical features, calling the alternative interpretation “way too preposterous.”
- Although the divisional application is now refused, Nintendo may file a trial petition within three months; the rejection does not impact the patents currently asserted in the ongoing Palworld lawsuit at the Tokyo District Court.
The JPO’s notice of rejection, released last week, concerned a divisional patent application filed by Nintendo and The Pokémon Company that sought to protect an “in‑game monster‑capturing system.” The application is part of the same patent family that underlies the company’s legal battle with Palworld developer Pocketpair, making the rejection a point of keen interest for industry observers.
Central to the JPO’s reasoning was a 2013 YouTube gameplay video showing the fan‑made game Pokémon Generations. In the initial “Reasons for Rejection,” the examiner pointed out specific mechanics visible in the video—such as selecting a Poké Ball displayed at the bottom‑right of the screen, which causes the avatar Ash to throw it, and if the ball hits Pikachu, the creature can be captured. The examiner argued that these disclosed elements rendered the claimed invention lacking an inventive step because they were already apparent in the prior art represented by the video.
Nintendo’s counter‑argument took a sharply different tack. Rather than addressing the substantive patentability issues, the company emphasized that the video and its characters constitute copyright‑infringing material. It repeatedly asserted that the JPO’s examiner “acted extremely inappropriately by deliberately mischaracterizing an infringing product as though it were an authorized one.” Nintendo further insisted that, to avoid any implication of endorsement, the examiner should have referred to the game elements using lengthy, non‑trademarked phrasing—e.g., “an object in the form of a small animal” instead of Pokémon, or “a spherical object with a red upper half and a white lower half” instead of Poké Ball.
The examiner’s rebuttal, contained in the notice confirming the rejection, was notably blunt. On the copyright point, the examiner clarified that, under Japanese patent law and prevailing court precedent, whether an invention infringes on copyright has no bearing on the assessment of inventive step. The response dryly suggested that Nintendo’s stance deviated from “standard thinking for patent practitioners” and labelled the idea that the examiner had implicitly endorsed the fangame as an officially licensed product a “completely unreasonable misunderstanding.” The examiner added that even if such a misunderstanding were possible, it would not affect the inventive‑step analysis.
Regarding Nintendo’s pedantry over nomenclature, the examiner countered that clarity and brevity should prevail when the underlying logical structure remains unchanged. Using the ordinary names (Ash, Pikachu, Poké Ball) does not alter the substance of the rejection; replacing them with verbose descriptions would merely produce redundancy without changing the conclusion. The examiner noted that even with those cumbersome rewrites, the grounds for refusal would stay the same, rendering Nintendo’s argument irrelevant to the inventive‑step determination.
Nintendo also argued that a mere video cannot reveal the technical features of a game program, implying either that the examiner was mistaken about the video’s nature or that the uploader had fabricated gameplay footage. The examiner dismissed both possibilities, observing that if the video were merely an animated clip with added narration, the uploader’s behavior would be “way too preposterous.” Consequently, the examiner upheld the original finding that the video sufficiently disclosed the claimed invention.
While these exchanges have amused Japanese netizens—who have shared favorite quotations from the examiner’s sharp tone—the JPO’s final notice upheld the rejection, finding none of Nintendo’s objections persuasive. Nintendo retains the right to file a petition for a trial before the Commissioner of the JPO within three months. Importantly, this refusal pertains only to the divisional application; it does not invalidate the patents currently being asserted in the Palworld lawsuit underway at the Tokyo District Court. Thus, while the battle over this particular patent claim has stalled, the broader litigation between Nintendo/The Pokémon Company and Pocketpair proceeds unchanged.