Nintendo’s Lawsuit Against Palworld: A Symptom of a Bigger Problem

[Crimson]

When I heard about Palworld facing a lawsuit from Nintendo, I was frustrated. I love Palworld and think the game has implemented ideas that Pokémon should have explored a long time ago.

What really bothers me, though, isn’t just this particular cast it’s the concept of patenting game mechanics. This practice should never have been allowed for developers or publishers.

One of the most notable examples of this issue came with Shadow of War and its Nemesis system, which was an innovative and brilliant mechanic deserving of praise. However, once it was patented, no other developer dared to create something similar for fear of legal repercussions.

This kind of restriction stifles creativity and innovation in gaming. If more companies follow suit and start patenting game mechanics, the industry will suffer. Developers will constantly risk stepping on legal landmines, making it harder to create new experiences.

In the long run, this practice will harm the gaming industry. Growth and progress depend on iteration and inspiration, and patents on mechanics threaten to snuff that out.

While I respect Nintendo’s contributions to gaming history, this approach is deeply disappointing. I hope the industry can move toward more openness and collaboration, which benefits both developers and players alike.

[Crimson]

Originally posted by Irene ❤:

It's old news, over a year ago, palworld moved on to do collab with other game companies and Nintendo is history in business.

Why kept bringing Nintendo up?

Did you read anything I said? It's not just about nintendo at all.

[The Mayonnaise Man]

Originally posted by Crimson:

Originally posted by Irene ❤:

It's old news, over a year ago, palworld moved on to do collab with other game companies and Nintendo is history in business.

Why kept bringing Nintendo up?

Did you read anything I said? It's not just about nintendo at all.

so they really did settle? and the ability to throw the spheres won't come back?

[Crimson]

Originally posted by The Mayonnaise Man:

Originally posted by Crimson:

Did you read anything I said? It's not just about nintendo at all.

so they really did settle? and the ability to throw the spheres won't come back?

As of now, there’s no public information suggesting that Nintendo and The Pokémon Company have settled their lawsuit with Palworld developer Pocketpair.

The lawsuit, filed in September 2024, claims Palworld infringes on multiple Nintendo and Pokémon patents. Nintendo is seeking ¥5 million (about $32,846) each, plus late payment damages, and an injunction to block Palworld’s release.

Pocketpair has stated they will contest the lawsuit, saying, “We will continue to assert our position in this case through future legal proceedings.”

Since patent disputes can take years to resolve, it’s unlikely we’ll see a quick conclusion unless the parties settle.

So Irene basically knows nothing about what he's talking about haha

[T9]

Originally posted by Irene ❤:

It's old news, over a year ago, lawsuit settled. Palworld moved on to do collab with other game companies. The constructive companies work together while the destructive ones deserved to be forgotten.

Why kept bringing Nintendo out? Any interesting games from Nintendo?

Yeah, I mean, protecting your stuff is totally unconstructive. LOL

[Crimson]

Originally posted by Irene ❤:

Originally posted by Crimson:

Did you read anything I said? It's not just about nintendo at all.

Yes and I confirm it's another BS topic because you watched youtubes. The youtubers are BS. The topic is discussed so many times last year, but different people watch the same video on different date, hence it appeared again.

Youtubers will go all the way to brainwash you, making you fear that those lawsuit and stuff will "harm" the future of gaming. Nothing but fear and reaction clickbaits. You totally believe their crap that people who patent something means it's the end.

Let me talk sense to you. Patent is not to roadblock but to reserve a recepie. He-man for example sued the RPG game "Tales of eternia" because they reserved the word Eternia. It was renamed to Tales of destiny, that simple. The game doesn't need to shut down. Nintendo sued Palworld because they wish to reserve a creature location summon mechanic. Therefore Palworld changed it to melee summon, that's all.

Can Nintendo tell palworld to not invent new creatures, not glide in the air, not have trainers, not throw a ball to catch a creature? They can't. Till this day you can still throw a ball to catch. So what's all the lawsuit about?

The company "Creatures" wish to have their one and only selling point that is to distant throw a creature. Nintendo bought that company and rename it to pokemon, and manage to get that little reserve. Palworld can do so many other designs, such as what many others suggested - Gun summon! Card summon! even mage summon. But palworld just make it melee for the time being.

Temtem has proven it won't get sued because the card summon is not any of pokemon's recipe. Then the CS youtubers claim they sued because of Sony, temtem is from another country, and other BS.

Till this day you get to see so many fighting games, so many RPG, so many open world. And you followed that BS youtuber to claim the future is uncertain.

Life is simple and fun. Don't complicate it and make it hard.

Let’s take a moment to unpack your claims, shall we?

First, dismissing concerns as 'BS from YouTubers' is a bold strategy, but it doesn’t hold much weight. Sure, some YouTubers sensationalize topics but that doesn’t negate valid criticism. The issue isn’t about lawsuits preventing all creativity; it’s about how patenting specific mechanics creates unnecessary roadblocks for innovation.

Your example of Tales of Eternia being renamed to Tales of Destiny oversimplifies things. A name change is far less restrictive than a mechanic being legally off-limits. The Nemesis System from Shadow of War is a prime example: patented and completely untouched by other developers since. The risk of legal action makes many devs hesitant to even explore similar concepts, stifling innovation not reserving it.

Now, let’s address your Pokémon argument. Nintendo suing Palworld isn’t just about a mechanic; it’s about enforcing rights on ideas that some would argue should remain open for iteration. Changing 'creature location summons' to 'melee summons' might seem minor, but it’s not always that simple. Patents can set a dangerous precedent if misused.

Finally, dismissing this as paranoia shows a lack of understanding of how the gaming industry evolves. Yes, there are countless RPGs, fighting games, and open worlds, but those genres thrive because developers build on each other's ideas. If patents become commonplace, that iterative growth could slow drastically.

It’s like you’re not even grasping the point AT ALL. The concern isn’t whether Palworld can tweak its mechanics to dodge a lawsuit it’s about the broader implications of locking down creative ideas. Innovation thrives on freedom, not legal gatekeeping. The future of gaming is uncertain, not because YouTubers say so, but because restrictive practices like patents have the potential to hurt more than help.

[Omega Battle]

And he deleted his comments

[Amatsu]

Originally posted by Crimson:

Originally posted by Irene ❤:

Yes and I confirm it's another BS topic because you watched youtubes. The youtubers are BS. The topic is discussed so many times last year, but different people watch the same video on different date, hence it appeared again.

Youtubers will go all the way to brainwash you, making you fear that those lawsuit and stuff will "harm" the future of gaming. Nothing but fear and reaction clickbaits. You totally believe their crap that people who patent something means it's the end.

Let me talk sense to you. Patent is not to roadblock but to reserve a recepie. He-man for example sued the RPG game "Tales of eternia" because they reserved the word Eternia. It was renamed to Tales of destiny, that simple. The game doesn't need to shut down. Nintendo sued Palworld because they wish to reserve a creature location summon mechanic. Therefore Palworld changed it to melee summon, that's all.

Can Nintendo tell palworld to not invent new creatures, not glide in the air, not have trainers, not throw a ball to catch a creature? They can't. Till this day you can still throw a ball to catch. So what's all the lawsuit about?

The company "Creatures" wish to have their one and only selling point that is to distant throw a creature. Nintendo bought that company and rename it to pokemon, and manage to get that little reserve. Palworld can do so many other designs, such as what many others suggested - Gun summon! Card summon! even mage summon. But palworld just make it melee for the time being.

Temtem has proven it won't get sued because the card summon is not any of pokemon's recipe. Then the CS youtubers claim they sued because of Sony, temtem is from another country, and other BS.

Till this day you get to see so many fighting games, so many RPG, so many open world. And you followed that BS youtuber to claim the future is uncertain.

Life is simple and fun. Don't complicate it and make it hard.

Let’s take a moment to unpack your claims, shall we?

First, dismissing concerns as 'BS from YouTubers' is a bold strategy, but it doesn’t hold much weight. Sure, some YouTubers sensationalize topics but that doesn’t negate valid criticism. The issue isn’t about lawsuits preventing all creativity; it’s about how patenting specific mechanics creates unnecessary roadblocks for innovation.

Your example of Tales of Eternia being renamed to Tales of Destiny oversimplifies things. A name change is far less restrictive than a mechanic being legally off-limits. The Nemesis System from Shadow of War is a prime example: patented and completely untouched by other developers since. The risk of legal action makes many devs hesitant to even explore similar concepts, stifling innovation not reserving it.

Now, let’s address your Pokémon argument. Nintendo suing Palworld isn’t just about a mechanic; it’s about enforcing rights on ideas that some would argue should remain open for iteration. Changing 'creature location summons' to 'melee summons' might seem minor, but it’s not always that simple. Patents can set a dangerous precedent if misused.

Finally, dismissing this as paranoia shows a lack of understanding of how the gaming industry evolves. Yes, there are countless RPGs, fighting games, and open worlds, but those genres thrive because developers build on each other's ideas. If patents become commonplace, that iterative growth could slow drastically.

It’s like you’re not even grasping the point AT ALL. The concern isn’t whether Palworld can tweak its mechanics to dodge a lawsuit it’s about the broader implications of locking down creative ideas. Innovation thrives on freedom, not legal gatekeeping. The future of gaming is uncertain, not because YouTubers say so, but because restrictive practices like patents have the potential to hurt more than help.

As a further point they didn't grasp, Nintendo has not bought or owns Pokemon in any capacity, outside of their 33% share of The Pokemon Company (the other 33% and 34% are owned by Creatures Inc and Gamefreak). I think the only reason they're suing is Nintendo has the better legal team, as opposed to just The Pokemon Company doing it with their own legal team.

[CatOnMushroom]

If you want to make a point, do it other then steam forums, this is stuff being a hype months ago here.

[Sstavix]

I remember years ago when Capcom sued another game developer, claiming that the fireball motion was copyrighted. The courts ruled against Capcom, with the judge specifically saying that using a controller to make a motion could not be copyrighted.

I have a feeling that the same might happen here. The crux of Nintendo's claim is that they have a patent... About throwing a ball at a creature. Really? Is that something that can be patented? People have been throwing rocks at animals since prerecorded history. It would be up to a judge to rule on, but it seems like pretty shaky grounds to base a case on.

I think it is simply saber-rattling on Nintendo's part. They don't like this competition, but this was the best they could come up with. A few simple tweaks to Palworld (change the sphere to a cube, maybe? Or a dodecahedron?) and there is no patent infringement any more. Problem solved, let's move on.

[White Rabbit Alice]

It Dosent matter what the medium for the mechanic is. (Replacement ideas have been brought up, your not the first, and you wont be the last) but.....
as long as you throw it, and something comes out, thats whats being targeted its the mechanic they are after, not the ball, perse.

[Sstavix]

Originally posted by Captain Tripps:

It Dosent matter what the medium for the mechanic is. (Replacement ideas have been brought up, your not the first, and you wont be the last) but.....
as long as you throw it, and something comes out, thats whats being targeted its the mechanic they are after, not the ball, perse.

You know what else is ball-shaped, and when you thow it something comes out? Eggs.

I think this is Nintendo's desperate attempt to stop what they see as competition. When I first heard of Palworld a year ago I thought Nintendo would have it shut down in a week. They tend to be militant about anything that might infringe on their intellectual properties. But coming in months later seems like Nintendo is grasping at straws and trying to scare the developer off.

Fortunately, it seems like this developer knows a bluff when they see it. I am interested to see how the courts rule, if it gets to that point.

[krishnath.dragon]

Nintendo's patents should never have been allowed in the first place due to prior art, also some of their patents are so hilariously generic that they cover everything from image editing software to scanners, digital cameras, and smart phones.

Also, when Nintendo made the lawsuit they made two crucial mistakes. #1: Pocket Pair had Nintendo's lawyers look over the game and its mechanics two weeks prior to release and was given the go ahead, and Pocket Pair has the receipts to prove it in court, and #2: Nintendo didn't know that Sony was the money behind Pocket Pair, and Sony absolutely hates Nintendo, and have a lot more money to throw at the trial than Nintendo does.

Nintendo is going to get absolutely blasted if it ever goes to full trial.

[Crimson]

Originally posted by krishnath.dragon:

Nintendo's patents should never have been allowed in the first place due to prior art, also some of their patents are so hilariously generic that they cover everything from image editing software to scanners, digital cameras, and smart phones.

Also, when Nintendo made the lawsuit they made two crucial mistakes. #1: Pocket Pair had Nintendo's lawyers look over the game and its mechanics two weeks prior to release and was given the go ahead, and Pocket Pair has the receipts to prove it in court, and #2: Nintendo didn't know that Sony was the money behind Pocket Pair, and Sony absolutely hates Nintendo, and have a lot more money to throw at the trial than Nintendo does.

Nintendo is going to get absolutely blasted if it ever goes to full trial.

So this sounds like just an intimidating tactics where Nintendo thought it might be a smaller company it could bully.

That's incredibly satisfying to hear lol

[amok]

Originally posted by Crimson:

[...]
What really bothers me, though, isn’t just this particular cast it’s the concept of patenting game mechanics. This practice should never have been allowed for developers or publishers.
[...]

Good news, then. You generally can't patent broad game mechanics, only specific technical implementations of them. This is why other games that feature creature capture and battle are not being sued by Nintendo - because the core game mechanic itself is not patentable in a broad sense.

Patents only cover specific implementations and must be novel and non-obvious. A game mechanic, in its conceptual form, is usually too abstract to be patented. What Nintendo is claiming here is not that they own the general idea of for example creature capture and battle, but that PocketPair has allegedly infringed on specific patents related to how those mechanics are implemented in practice.

If I remember correctly, there are three different patents in question. Nintendo needs to prove that PocketPair’s implementation is similar enough to their patented systems to constitute infringement and that the patents themselves are valid (i.e., novel and not overly broad). On the other hand, PocketPair must demonstrate that their implementations are distinct enough to avoid infringement.

In any case, this will most likely be settled out of court, meaning neither side will have to prove their case definitively.

[funewchie]

Originally posted by Sstavix:

I remember years ago when Capcom sued another game developer, claiming that the fireball motion was copyrighted. The courts ruled against Capcom, with the judge specifically saying that using a controller to make a motion could not be copyrighted.

I have a feeling that the same might happen here. The crux of Nintendo's claim is that they have a patent... About throwing a ball at a creature. Really? Is that something that can be patented? People have been throwing rocks at animals since prerecorded history. It would be up to a judge to rule on, but it seems like pretty shaky grounds to base a case on.

I think it is simply saber-rattling on Nintendo's part. They don't like this competition, but this was the best they could come up with. A few simple tweaks to Palworld (change the sphere to a cube, maybe? Or a dodecahedron?) and there is no patent infringement any more. Problem solved, let's move on.

Possibly.
But unfortunately, Nintendo is also seeking a court injunction to ban all sales of Palworld for the next 20+ years.

And no, design has nothing to do with the lawsuit. A sphere, a cube, a pyramid, a disc, a pair of panties, a throwing card saying "Nintendo is for wusses", etc, all would violate that patent.
Any object thrown to summon a creature (or capture it) violate the patent.

Likewise, their other patent is to summon a mount to ride.
(Meaning Square-Enix better watch their rears, and, not add a whistle to summon a Chocobo, or they might be next on Nintendo's list to sue)