U.S. Patent Office Reexamines Nintendo’s Controversial “Summoning and Battling Characters”

The ongoing legal battle between Nintendo and Pocketpair, the developer of Palworld, has taken an unexpected turn. According to a detailed report from Games Fray, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), under the direction of John A. Squires, has ordered a rare reexamination of Nintendo’s patent number 12,403,397, which is central to the company’s ongoing lawsuit against Pocketpair.

Patent 12,403,397, available to the public through the Internet Archive, covers the concept of summoning a sub-character and letting it battle in one of two modes. This particular mechanic has drawn attention because it resembles certain features found in Palworld. Intellectual property lawyer Kirk Sigmon previously stated that the patent “should not have happened, full stop,” expressing serious doubts about its validity.

The reexamination ordered by the USPTO is highly unusual. It is rare for the agency’s director to personally initiate such a review, and this decision could result in the patent being revoked or modified depending on the outcome. Although it remains possible that the patent will be upheld, the fact that it is being revisited suggests that the office is taking the issue very seriously.

According to Games Fray, the growing public scrutiny surrounding the Nintendo and Pocketpair case may have influenced the decision to prioritize this review. The lawsuit has gained significant global attention after Nintendo accused Pocketpair of infringing on its intellectual property through Palworld’s creature summoning and combat systems. Many within the gaming and legal industries have criticized the lawsuit, arguing that Nintendo’s claims attempt to monopolize common gameplay concepts rather than protect unique innovations.

If the reexamination leads to the patent being invalidated, it could significantly weaken Nintendo’s case against Pocketpair. Games Fray described Nintendo’s current approach as a “hail mary,” suggesting that the company is taking increasingly aggressive steps to defend a patent that many see as overly broad.

For now, the gaming community and industry observers are waiting for the USPTO’s findings. This reexamination marks an important development not only for the Palworld lawsuit but also for the broader debate on whether game mechanics should be patentable. The decision could have lasting implications for how creative ideas in game design are protected and contested in the future.

 
Do you believe gameplay mechanics such as summoning and battling should be patentable, or are they too broad to claim ownership of? Share your thoughts below.