An Embarrassing Failure of the US Patent System: Nintendo’s Controversial New Patents on Pokémon Mechanics

Introduction: When Patents Clash with Creativity

In early September 2025, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company secured two new US patents that have sent shockwaves through the gaming community. One patent covers the mechanic of summoning a character to battle another, and the other relates to smooth switching of riding objects in gameplay. While these may sound like standard video game features, their patenting has raised eyebrows—and legal concerns—especially given Nintendo’s ongoing lawsuit against the game Palworld, which features similar monster-catching and battling mechanics.

This blog dives into why these patents are seen as controversial, why a videogame IP lawyer has called this an “embarrassing failure of the US patent system,” and what this means for game developers and players alike.

Pokemon Unite gameplay featuring a battle in Theia Sky Ruins

What Are Nintendo’s Latest Patents About?

Nintendo’s newly granted patents are:

US Patent No. 12,403,397: Covers the gameplay mechanic where a player summons a character (or creature) and sends it to fight another character. This is a core mechanic in Pokémon games where trainers send their Pokémon to battle opponents.
US Patent No. 12,409,387: Focuses on the “smooth switching of riding objects,” a mechanic involving riding and flying systems, also used in several Nintendo games.

These patents were awarded in September 2025 after an application process that began in March 2023. The second patent followed some procedural hurdles but was ultimately granted after Nintendo amended claims and worked with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) .

Why Are These Patents Controversial?

The controversy stems from the fact that summoning creatures to fight and riding/flying mechanics are long-standing and widely used gameplay elements in many video games—not just Pokémon. These mechanics are fundamental to various genres, especially role-playing games (RPGs), and have existed in multiple forms well before Nintendo’s recent filings.

Expert Criticism: A Patent System Failure

Kirk Sigmon, a videogame IP lawyer, has been vocal about the patents. He described the USPTO’s approval of these patents as “an embarrassing failure of the US patent system” because:

The patents cover broad and generic gameplay mechanics that should be considered common knowledge or obvious in the game development community.
The USPTO granted these patents with “alarmingly little resistance” despite prior art and similar mechanics in existing games from other companies such as Tencent and Xbox .
The procedural path to granting these patents involved amendments and interviews, but the core claims remained broad enough to give Nintendo powerful legal tools to stifle competition .

This situation highlights procedural irregularities and questions the USPTO’s ability to handle videogame patents fairly and effectively.

Impact on the Gaming Industry: Who Is Affected?

Palworld: The Immediate Target

The game Palworld by Pocketpair has already felt the heat. Nintendo sued Pocketpair over alleged patent infringement due to similarities in monster-catching and summoning mechanics. In response, Palworld has removed features like creature summoning to avoid further legal conflict .

Broader Industry Implications

The problem extends beyond Palworld. Because summoning and battling mechanics are common, many other games could potentially fall under Nintendo’s patent claims, including upcoming titles like HoYoverse’s Honkai: Nexus Anima and possibly Bandai Namco’s new Digimon game . This creates a chilling effect on innovation, as developers might hesitate to explore or refine these core mechanics fearing legal action.

Nintendo’s patent on riding and flying systems could also impact games that use similar smooth switching mechanics between mounts or vehicles—a feature not unique to Nintendo’s portfolio .

The Legal and Ethical Debate: Patents vs. Creativity

Patents are meant to protect unique inventions and encourage innovation. However, Nintendo’s case raises key questions:

Are basic gameplay mechanics patentable? Many argue that fundamental game design elements should remain open to encourage creativity, not be monopolized by a single company.
Is this patent strategy anti-competitive? Critics say Nintendo is using patents to bully competitors and maintain dominance in the monster-battling genre rather than to protect genuine innovation .
How should the USPTO adapt? The patent office’s role is crucial here. Experts call for clearer guidelines and stricter examination standards for videogame patents to prevent overly broad claims that hinder the entire industry.

What Does This Mean for Gamers?

For players, these patents could limit the variety of monster-catching and battling games available in the future. Developers forced to avoid certain mechanics might produce fewer innovative or diverse titles in this beloved genre.

Moreover, games like Palworld have already had to change gameplay features, which can impact player experience and the game’s original vision.

Looking Ahead: Possible Outcomes and Industry Responses

Legal Battles and Appeals

Nintendo’s aggressive patent enforcement, especially against Palworld, suggests prolonged legal battles ahead. Other developers might also face cease-and-desist demands or lawsuits if their games resemble patented mechanics.

Calls for Reform

The broader gaming community, industry insiders, and legal experts are increasingly vocal about reforming videogame patent law. This could involve:

Defining clearer boundaries for what constitutes patentable gameplay mechanics.
Introducing exceptions for widely used or generic mechanics.
Increasing scrutiny during patent examination to avoid broad grants like Nintendo’s recent wins.

Innovation Under Pressure

Despite legal pressures, the gaming world is resilient. Developers may innovate in new directions or find creative workarounds to avoid patent infringement, potentially leading to fresh gameplay experiences.

Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for the US Patent System

Nintendo’s recent patents on Pokémon’s summoning and riding mechanics have ignited a critical debate about the scope and fairness of videogame patents in the US. Described by experts as an “embarrassing failure” of the patent system, these patents risk stifling innovation and competition in a genre beloved by millions.

For game developers, this spells caution and uncertainty. For gamers, it could mean fewer choices in the monster-battling space. And for the patent system, it serves as a wake-up call to refine how it evaluates and grants patents in the fast-evolving world of gaming.

As the legal battles unfold and discussions around reform intensify, one thing is clear: the intersection of IP law and game design is becoming one of the most critical battlegrounds for the future of creative freedom in gaming.