Nintendo’s Latest Patents “Should Not Have Happened, Full Stop,” Says IP Lawyer
Nintendo has secured two new U.S. patents that have sparked intense criticism from legal experts and game developers alike, with one attorney calling them an outright failure of the patent system.
As spotted by Gamesfray, the company recently obtained US Patent 12,403,397, which covers the mechanic of summoning a sub-character to battle an enemy character, effectively describing the core system of a Pokémon battle. Nintendo also secured US Patent 12,409,387, which focuses on mechanics involving player characters riding in-game objects.
Both patents arrive amid Nintendo’s ongoing lawsuit against PocketPair, the developer of Palworld, and are widely seen as attempts to strengthen its legal arsenal.
But according to IP and patent lawyer Kirk Sigmon, speaking with PC Gamer, the real problem isn’t just what Nintendo patented - it’s how the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) approved them.
“Broadly, I don't disagree with the many online complaints about these Nintendo patents. They have been an embarrassing failure of the US patent system,” Sigmon said. “This seems like a situation where the USPTO essentially gave up and just allowed the case, assuming the claims were narrow or specific enough to be new without evaluating them too closely. I strongly disagree with this result: In my view, these claims were in no way allowable… This allowance should not have happened, full stop.”
Sigmon warned that these patents give Nintendo leverage not just against Palworld but against scores of other games that feature similar mechanics. The broader concern, he explained, is how easily such patents can be weaponized by large companies with powerful legal teams.
“The USPTO dropped the ball big time, and it's going to externalize a lot of uncertainty (and, potentially, litigation cost) onto developers and companies that do not deserve it,” Sigmon continued. “They were not made to allow a big player to game the system, get an overly broad patent that they should have never received in the first place, and then go around bullying would-be competition with the threat of a legally questionable lawsuit.”
Nintendo has already been accused of retroactively adjusting existing patents to strengthen its case against Palworld, a tactic many see as a last-ditch or “Hail Mary” legal maneuver. While these new patents could face challenges through Inter Partes Review, the ease with which they were granted raises doubts about how rigorously the USPTO evaluates such claims.
The outcome of Nintendo’s lawsuit and the potential ripple effects of these patents could have long-lasting consequences for game developers, IP law, and the future of creative mechanics in gaming.
Do you think gameplay mechanics should ever be patentable, or does this stifle creativity in the industry?
