Patenting Pokémon? The Story of the Patent Lawsuit for One of the World’s Biggest Brands
Ryan McCormick | November 10, 2025
Ryan McCormick is a registered U.S. Patent Attorney specializing in patent prosecution, guiding inventors and companies through the process of securing patent protection. His experience spans diverse technologies, including artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and blockchain. In addition to computer technologies, Ryan helps designers of physical goods protect their innovations through both utility and design patents. He holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Mechanical Engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology and earned his Juris Doctor from Seton Hall University School of Law. Combining technical expertise with legal insight, he helps clients safeguard innovations in emerging and complex fields.
In September 2024, video game companies Nintendo and The Pokémon Company announced a lawsuit against PocketPair, creator of the overnight hit Palworld. While Nintendo is no stranger to suing for infringement of their brands or copyrighted works, this time the claim was something unexpected: patent infringement.
Yes, that’s right. Trademark law’s “nerdy cousin,” patent law, took center stage. But why patents—especially when Palworld so closely resembled the Pokémon franchise that fans dubbed it “Pokémon with guns.”
Why Patents, Not Trademarks?
While Nintendo tends to sue for trademark or copyright infringement more often than patents, it may be possible that patents appeared to be the best solution for addressing this supposed copycat. Trademark infringement hinges on showing a likelihood of consumer confusion. Here, though, many players likely recognized Palworld as distinct from Pokémon, even if the games share aesthetic and gameplay similarities.
In the years since Pokémon’s debut, the video game industry has been flooded with so-called “monster catching” games, many of which utilize characters with similar traits to those of the Pokémon franchise. As a result, the average consumer may recognize that there are a lot of supposed “Pokémon clones” and that not every monster catching game belongs to that franchise.
So, assuming that there was no clear likelihood of confusion or other copyrighted aspects being infringed, patent law may have become another tool Nintendo could use to challenge this other game. Since the launch of the Nintendo Switch, Nintendo has become increasingly proactive in patenting aspects of its software, particularly innovative gameplay mechanics. In particular, dozens of patent applications have been filed to protect game mechanics from franchises such as The Legend of Zelda and Pokémon.
The Infringement at Issue
That brings us to the heart of the dispute. Nintendo and The Pokémon Company allege that Palworld infringes several patents related to the Pokémon Legends franchise, a series known for open-world exploration and real-time battles. Aspects like how to ride flying mounts are among the patented features that Palworld supposedly infringe.
At the time of writing of this article, the lawsuit is based solely out of Japan and alleging infringement of Japanese patents. However, with counterpart U.S. patents being granted in the time since the lawsuit was filed in Japan, it is becoming increasingly possible that Nintendo could attempt to take the battle to the U.S. However, Nintendo will have to weigh heavily how differences between U.S. and Japanese law, particularly regarding subject matter eligibility, might affect the likelihood of success.
The lawsuit listed four patents as allegedly being infringed: U.S. Patents 7,545,191; 7,493,117; and 7,528,390.
U.S. Patent No. 7,545,191 generally pertains to the use and activation of “rideable characters” that are capable of aerial movement upon receiving an input while the player character is airborne. The gameplay in early versions of Palworld includes a flying mount feature.
U.S. Patent No. 7,493,117 appears to relate to a method for aiming and projecting a capture device toward a character within a virtual environment. The claims also mention displaying an indicator above the target character to represent the probability or difficulty of a successful capture. In early versions of Palworld, a capture rate above a potential target prior to the player throwing a “Pal Sphere,” which is the analog to a Pokéball.
U.S. Patent No. 7,528,390 broadly concerns the combination of two user-initiated actions: (1) directional aiming of a capture device used to obtain characters, and (2) adopting a player stance to release a previously captured character to engage in combat with another character. Early versions of Palworld incorporated gameplay features involving both the capture and battle of such characters.
Why This Game?
One other question you might reasonably have: why Palworld? After all, so many “Pokémon clones” exist and Nintendo does not spend all of its resources chasing down each and every alleged clone. The greater the commercial success, the greater the incentive for Nintendo to act – both to protect its market share and to signal that it will defend its innovations beyond just trademarks.
By February 2024, “Pokémon with guns” had generated hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in revenue and showed signs that it might eventually pose a substantial threat to the media juggernaut that is Pokémon.
The high amount of revenue generated in the early days since the launch of the game, plus interest from Nintendo competitor Sony (who has since announced a partnership to form a business called Palworld Entertainment) may have contributed to Nintendo’s decision to pursue action against this budding franchise.
Looking Toward the Future
As the Palworld brand expands, more potential trademark or copyright infringement claims might arise. But for now, maybe Nintendo sought to use a less well understood form of intellectual property claim in order to avoid drawing parallels to brand or creative aspects prematurely.
On Palworld’s end, the lawsuit does not appear to have deterred the fledgling franchise developer. While addressing the patent claims reportedly required several updates to the game, the patch-based nature of modern video game development allows Pocketpair to make quick adjustments to avoid potential infringement. The ability to adapt, coupled with a strong partner in the form of Sony, might just allow Pocketpair and its budding Palworld franchise to thrive in the years to come.
Although this case centers on patents, it highlights a broader point for brand owners: when traditional trademark or copyright arguments may fall short, companies can turn to other IP tools such as patents in order to protect their creative ecosystems.