USPTO Set to Reassess Approved Nintendo Patent Following Recent Review Request

from the try-try-again dept

Well, this is actually pretty fascinating. We’ve been discussing the somewhat bizzare patent lawsuit Nintendo is waging against PocketPair in Japan for some time now. PocketPair is the company behind the hit game Palworldwhich has obviously drawn inspiration from the Pokémon franchise, without doing any direct copying. Powering this attack were several held or applied-for patents in Japan that cover some pretty general gameplay elements, most, if not all, of which have plenty of prior art in previous games and/or game mods. Most recently, two things happened on opposite sides of the ocean. In September, the USPTO approved a couple of new, but related patents in a manner that had at least one patent attorney calling it an “embarrassing failure.” Separately, in Japan, a patent that Nintendo applied for, which sits in between two approved patents that are being wielded in the Palworld lawsuit, was rejected for being unoriginal and for which prior art exists. Given how interrelated that patent is with the other approved patents, the same logic would apply to the approved patents, bringing into question whether all of these patents should just be invalidated.

Back on the USPTO side, one of the patents that was approved without proper due diligence was patent #12,403,397 and covers the summoning a “sub character” that will either fight at your command or fight autonomously based on input from the player. Again, prior art abounds in this sort of thing, which is the “embarrassing failure” mentioned earlier.

Well, in what is apparently the first time in a decade, USPTO Director John Squires personally ordered a re-examination of this patent.

John A Squires has personally ordered a re-examination of the patent, citing previous patents which might make it invalid. Specifically, Squires has focused on the patent’s claim to having a sub-character fight alongside you with the option to make them fight either automatically or via manual control. In his order, Squires said he had “determined that substantial new questions of patentability have arisen” based on the publications of two previous patents, named as Yabe and Taura.

The Yabe patent was granted in 2002 to Konamiand refers to a sub-character fighting alongside the player either automatically or manually, while the Taura patent was granted in 2020 to Nintendo itself, and also refers to a sub-character who battles alongside the player.

Yes, one of the previous patents that might invalidate this one is held by Nintendo itself. And I would argue that these gameplay mechanic patents are still far too generic and obvious to those in the industry to be patentable at all. That isn’t Squires’ argument, however. Instead, the original examiner did some true tilting at windmills to pretend like prior art didn’t exist because of minute specifics in this new patent and so never considered the Yabe and Taura patents.

While this doesn’t directly relate to the patent suit in Japan, it’s hard not to see this in the context of the patent rejection in Japan, never mind how the rest of this weird lawsuit is going, and not see that this is a house of cards that is collapsing in on Nintendo.

And, most importantly, I still can’t see how any of this is worth it for Nintendo. Bad publicity, legal costs, time, energy, effort, and for what? Palworld is still a hit and the Pokémon franchise is still strong. What are we doing here?

Filed Under: japan, john squires, patents, pokemon, us, uspto

Companies: nintendo, pocketpair, pokemon company

What specific claims within Nintendo’s US Patent 9,433,555 B2 are being directly challenged by the review request?

Understanding the Patent in Question: Nintendo’s Motion Control Technology

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced it will reopen its review of a previously approved Nintendo patent, sparking meaningful discussion within the gaming industry and legal circles.The patent, originally granted in 2016 (US Patent 9,433,555 B2), covers core technology related to Nintendo’s motion control systems, specifically those utilized in the Wii, Wii U, and nintendo Switch consoles.This Nintendo patent focuses on accurately detecting the position and orientation of a handheld controller in 3D space using accelerometers and gyroscopic sensors.

The core innovation lies in the algorithms used to filter sensor data and compensate for drift, resulting in a more precise and responsive gaming experience. Competitors have long sought to replicate this level of accuracy in their own motion gaming controllers. The initial approval of this gaming patent granted nintendo substantial intellectual property protection.

The Review Request: Who Challenged the Patent & Why?

The impetus for the reassessment stems from a formal review request filed by [Data regarding the specific entity filing the request is currently unavailable publicly as of November 6, 2025. Updates will be provided as they become available]. The request alleges that prior art – existing technology predating Nintendo’s patent application – demonstrates the invention was not novel at the time of filing.

Specifically, the challenge points to research papers published in the early 2000s detailing similar sensor fusion techniques used in robotics and inertial navigation systems.The argument centers on weather Nintendo’s implementation represents a sufficiently inventive step over these pre-existing technologies. This is a common tactic in patent challenges, aiming to invalidate claims based on a lack of originality.

USPTO Reassessment Process: What to Expect

The USPTO’s reassessment isn’t a quick process. Here’s a breakdown of the likely steps:

1. initial Evaluation: The USPTO will first determine if the review request meets the necessary criteria for consideration.
2. Evidence Review: Both Nintendo and the challenging party will submit evidence supporting their respective positions. This includes technical documentation, expert testimonies, and prior art references.
3. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Review: the PTAB, an administrative tribunal within the USPTO, will review the submitted evidence and arguments.
4. oral Hearing (Potential): The PTAB may hold an oral hearing to clarify points of contention.
5. Final Decision: The PTAB will issue a final decision either upholding the patent, narrowing its claims, or invalidating it entirely.

This entire process typically takes 12-18 months, though complex cases can take longer. The outcome will considerably impact the intellectual property landscape for motion control technology.

Potential Impacts on the gaming Industry

The outcome of this reassessment could have far-reaching consequences:

* Nintendo’s Competitive advantage: If the patent is upheld, Nintendo retains a significant advantage in the motion control gaming market.

* Competitor innovation: Invalidation of the patent woudl open the door for competitors like Sony, Microsoft, and others to more freely develop and implement similar motion control technologies without fear of infringement lawsuits.

* Licensing revenue: Nintendo currently generates revenue through licensing its motion control technology. A revoked patent would eliminate this income stream.

* future Patent Filings: the decision will set a precedent for future patent applications related to sensor fusion and motion tracking.

Real-World Examples of Similar Patent Disputes

The Nintendo case isn’t unique. The gaming industry is rife with patent litigation.

* Apple vs. Samsung: The long-running legal battle over smartphone patents demonstrates the high stakes involved in protecting intellectual property.

* Sony vs. Microsoft (Controller Patents): Both companies have previously clashed over controller technology patents, highlighting the competitive nature of console innovation.

* Atari vs. Nintendo (Early Console Wars): Early patent disputes shaped the landscape of the video game industry.

These cases illustrate the importance of robust patent protection and the willingness of companies to defend their innovations.

Benefits of a Robust Patent System for Gaming Innovation

A strong patent system, while sometimes controversial, ultimately benefits the gaming industry by:

* Incentivizing Research & Development: Patents provide a financial incentive for companies to invest in developing new technologies.

* Promoting Disclosure: The patent process requires inventors to publicly disclose their inventions, fostering knowledge sharing.

* Encouraging Competition: While patents grant temporary exclusivity, they also spur competitors to innovate around existing patents.

Practical Tips for Developers & Companies

* Conduct Thorough Prior Art Searches: Before filing a patent application, ensure a complete search is conducted to identify existing technologies.

* Document Everything: Maintain detailed records of the invention process, including research notes, prototypes, and testing data.

* Seek Expert Legal Counsel: Engage a qualified patent attorney to navigate the complex patent application process.

* Monitor Competitor Patents: Stay informed about patents filed by competitors to identify potential infringement risks and opportunities.