How the USPTO's rejection of Nintendo's summon and fight patent impacts PalWorld and other games

We're seeing some important developments in the ongoing Nintendo vs. Nintendo game, even if they're not yet conclusive. Pal World The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a final rejection of the 'Summon and Fight' patent granted to Nintendo in September 2025. This patent, which covers game mechanics related to summoning secondary characters into battle, was heavily criticized by the gaming industry from the moment it was granted. Now, USPTO examiners have preliminarily agreed with critics and made changes to the prior approval. This is a meaningful step. Pal WorldCourtesy of .

It's not a huge hit for a number of reasons. This patent is not in the same court as the actual legal fight, it is one of many patents involved, and Nintendo reserves the right to respond, modify, and appeal. But the decision validates the widespread concerns of many legal experts and observers that patents are too broad and too under-researched. The jury is still out, but these important developments could help change the tone of the overall case.

Nintendo Pokemon Anti Pal World Patent Forest Tree Indie Game Overreaction

relevant

Nintendo's new Anti-Palworld Pokemon patent leaves no forest for the trees.

Palworld has Nintendo's attention firmly in its sights, but the new Pokemon patent risks missing the bigger picture as it struggles to resolve legal issues.

What Patents Actually Cover

To know what this rejection really means Pal World The full title of the patent (patent US12403397B2), “Storage Media, Information Processing System, Information Processing Apparatus, and Game Processing Method,” doesn't say much, and it's important to dig into it because everything involved in this case is a confusing mix of bilingual legalese. The core claim of Nintendo's patent is simpler. It addresses the implementation of a specific skill in the game that allows players to summon companion creatures (referred to in the patent as “sub-characters”) that engage enemies through one of two modes.

Manual mode: If enemies already exist at the summon location, the battle progresses under the player's control.
Automatic mode: If there are no enemies in the immediate vicinity, the sub-character moves in the direction specified by the player, and automatically starts combat when it encounters an enemy.

It's intentionally vague, but to put it simply, this can essentially apply to any game where you ditch your companion creature and fight something. The problem is that some IP law experts have raised concerns that Nintendo's patent could apply to a wide range of video games due to the vague wording of this claim. Pal World This may be the most obvious example, but the same goes for games like: Elden Ring Legally, if enough pressure is applied, they could technically fall into the same category.

How Nintendo got to this point

For context, Nintendo filed this application in March 2023 and it was approved in September 2025 with a cleaner-than-average prosecution record. The claims were neither denied nor amended during the initial investigation, an outcome practitioners said was unusual. Industry observers were quick to flag extensive prior art on forums and Reddit (games that have been doing this sort of thing for decades), and legal commentators were blunt in their criticism. Patent analyst Florian Mueller called the case overall “a clear case of harassment.”

The volume of criticism was so great that in November 2025, the USPTO Director ordered an ex parte reexamination (in the absence of either party) of the patent, and by March 2026, the examiner issued a 104-page Office Action dismissing all 26 claims made in the patent. The denial proved obvious by combining the four prior art references themselves: Konami, Bandai Namco, and Nintendo. Obviousness in this case is a legal basis for interfering with patenting inventions that were obvious to a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field at the time of application.

What “Non-Final” Really Means

palworld announces the upcoming Halloween event.

While this rejection sounds like a landmark ruling on the surface, it is essentially a first draft of the decision and not a final rejection. Nintendo has at least two months to respond and make amends, but the real trade-offs Nintendo faces due to this refusal are real. Amending the claims to survive rejection would mean sacrificing the broad scope that made the patent controversial and meaningful in escalating the fight against it. Pal World First of all, developer Pocketpair.

The bigger picture: Japan and Nintendo’s U.S. portfolio

To be clear, immediate Pal World This lawsuit is a Japanese case filed in the Tokyo District Court in September 2024. All of this USPTO business has no direct legal significance in the lawsuit, but the point is that it is directly related to the Japanese case. Nintendo's troubles with UPTSO stem from its aggressive move to build a parallel U.S. patent portfolio, which could fast-track several U.S. patents corresponding to the Japanese patents at issue in late 2024. Pal World full dress. If Nintendo decides to pursue this, it could set the stage for a lawsuit in the United States.

So while it doesn't affect the actual case, the USPTO's reexamination calls into question the credibility of Nintendo's entire U.S. patent enforcement strategy. In particular, this is true even after the Japanese Patent Office issued a separate non-final rejection ruling on the related Japanese application (No. 2024-031879), which is the parent of two of the patents claiming 'monster capture', citing the following games. ARK: Survival Evolved and Monster Hunter As prior art. The JPO's rejection is also not immediately binding, but Pocketpair will likely cite both of these decisions when it opposes Nintendo's lawsuit, and the judge may note how two separate patent offices treat the same basic mechanism.

How Nintendo's Patent Rejection Affects the Industry

In the short term, this is a PR win for Pocketpair, a developer that has already been proactive in its transformation. Pal WorldAfter a Japanese lawsuit was filed against Nintendo's mechanics, the ability to ride a companion for gliding was removed and replaced with a separate tool. This provides public and official sources to support claims that Nintendo's game mechanism patents are overly broad and poorly researched. In the long run, examples can be very important in setting the tone. The reexamination ordered by the USPTO Director ends with a dismissal of all claims on the basis of clarity and sends a message.

The battle against Pocketpair in Japanese courts is yet to be decided. For Nintendo in particular, the pressure now is to either defend the claims in writing, an uphill battle given the thoroughness of the examiners, or accept a narrower version that carries less enforcement weight. But the legal dispute has already had a real impact on game design, regardless of how the patent is ultimately resolved.