Nintendo (together with The Pokémon Company) has been seeking after a claim in Japan against Pocketpair, charging that Polyword encroaches on licenses related to monster‑catching and creature‑capture gameplay mechanics.
polygon.com
+3
reuters.com
+3
theverge.com
+3
On 30 October 2025, a choice by the JPO surfaced: a Japanese obvious application recorded by Nintendo (application number 2024‑031879) has been rejected by the inspector.
VGC
+2
Game Spot
+2
The reason cited: the claimed development was not novel / needed an innovative step since earlier craftsmanship as of now existed. The JPO famous that recreations such as ARK: Survival Advanced (Ark), Creature Seeker 4, Craftopia, Kantai Collection and indeed Pokémon GO contained mechanics that expect the claimed development.
VGC
+2
The Express Tribune
+2
The take note of refusal states something along the lines of: “the innovations claimed in… this application were concocted in Japan or somewhere else some time recently the recording of the application.”
VGC
+1
Importantly, this dismissal applies to the application, not a completely allowed obvious. Nintendo still has alternatives: revise the application, request the choice, or desert it.
Game Spot
+1
The setting and background
In the claim recorded in September 2024, Nintendo and TPC claimed that Polyword encroaches on different Japanese licenses (for case JP No. 7545191, 7493117, 7528390) that relate to mechanics like tossing a capture‑item (e.g., a “ball”) at a animal, pointing, riding creatures, etc.
theverge.com
+1
The capture workman is center to numerous monster‑collection recreations (classic illustration: the “Poké Ball” technician in the Pokémon arrangement). Nintendo has been attempting to declare assurance over certain gameplay mechanics.
The JPO dismissal of the later application is not specifically portion of the claim – the court case is isolated. But it may impact how the courts see the creativity or legitimacy of Nintendo’s broader obvious portfolio.
The Express Tribune
+1
Why this matters
The refusal signals that the JPO finds the claimed innovation in that application to be not adequately novel (i.e., earlier craftsmanship exists). That debilitates the contention that Nintendo’s claimed technician was a modern invention.
In obvious case (particularly for gaming mechanics), having a obvious rejected by the obvious office can be utilized by the contradicting side to contend that the obvious ought to not have been allowed or is invalid. Whereas the court doesn’t have to take after the JPO’s choice, courts regularly grant weight to the specialized appraisal inferred from inspectors.
VGC
+1
For Nintendo’s claim against Pocketpair, this may give ammo to the respondent to challenge other licenses in the family, or contend that the declared claims are over‑broad.
From a broader industry viewpoint, it raises questions around whether gameplay mechanics (especially widely‑used ones like capture mechanics) can be licensed or implemented effectively.
Vital caveats
The JPO’s choice is non‑final (i.e., dismissal of the application at this arrange). Nintendo still may attempt to revise or request the application.
Game Spot
A dismissal of one application does not naturally discredit other existing allowed licenses held by Nintendo or TPC, in spite of the fact that it may raise scrutiny.
The court in the Tokyo Area Court taking care of the claim may or may not permit this dismissal to intensely impact its choice; obvious case includes numerous variables past fair the regulatory obvious status.
Patent laws in Japan (and universally) recognize between what is patentable (novel, creative step, mechanical appropriateness) and what isn’t; gameplay mechanics are in some cases disputable as to whether they are patentable subject‑matter (particularly unique thoughts, amusement rules, etc.).
What’s following / what to watch
Nintendo has 60 days from the take note of dismissal to react (e.g., record revisions or offer).
Windows Central
+1
Keep an eye on whether Nintendo chooses to forsake that Japanese application or tries to rescue it by means of amendment.
In the claim, both parties may reference the JPO choice: Pocketpair may highlight it to contend deficiency; Nintendo may contend that the application still has esteem or that the choice is constrained to the pending application only.
Watch whether other licenses in the same “monster capture” family come beneath audit or confront challenge. The quality of Nintendo’s case seem pivot on the legitimacy of numerous licenses, not fair one.
More broadly, engineers, distributers, and legitimate specialists will watch how the industry treats the protecting of diversion mechanics; this may impact how much assurance companies endeavor to look for and how forcefully they uphold it.
From a gameplay/design side, this may empower development around capture / companion mechanics, or at slightest decrease the fear of being sued by huge patent‑holders if mechanics are non specific or broadly executed.
0 Comments