Palworld’s release earlier this year was a massive success. Within days, it became the second-highest concurrent player count in Steam’s history, peaking at 2.1 million users—recently dethroned by Black Myth: Wukong, which surpassed 2.4 million. However, this success has been mired in controversy from the start. Pocketpair, the studio behind the game, has faced accusations of plagiarizing Pokémon, with fans demanding Nintendo and The Pokémon Company take legal action. After months of backlash, their wishes were granted: Nintendo announced this week that it, alongside The Pokémon Company, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Pocketpair.
Official Statement from Nintendo
“Nintendo Co., Ltd. (HQ: Kyoto, Minami-ku, Japan; Representative Director and President: Shuntaro Furukawa, hereafter ‘Nintendo’) and The Pokémon Company have filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court against Pocketpair, Inc. (HQ: 2-10-2 Higashigotanda, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, hereafter ‘Defendant’) on September 18, 2024.
This lawsuit seeks an injunction against infringement and damages, alleging that Palworld, a game developed and published by the Defendant, violates multiple patent rights.
Nintendo will continue taking necessary measures against any infringement of its intellectual property rights, including its trademarks, to protect the IP it has worked diligently to establish over the years.”
Why Did the Lawsuit Take So Long?
Since day one, part of the community has accused Pocketpair of copying Pokémon’s creature designs and mechanics, sparking heated debates online. Shortly after Palworld’s launch, The Pokémon Company released a statement:
“We have received numerous inquiries regarding another company’s game released in January 2024. We have not granted any permission for the use of Pokémon intellectual property or assets in that game. We intend to investigate and take appropriate action to address any acts that infringe on Pokémon-related IP rights. We will continue cherishing each Pokémon and its world, striving to unite the world through Pokémon in the future.”
If they believed their IP was being misused from the start, why the delay? There’s no official answer, but a July announcement might hold the key.
Pocketpair’s Collaboration with Sony Music Entertainment Japan and Aniplex
On July 10, Pocketpair shocked the world by announcing a joint venture with Sony Music Entertainment Japan and Aniplex, titled Palworld Entertainment Inc., aimed at expanding the franchise beyond gaming. Aniplex, a Sony Music subsidiary, is a powerhouse in anime production (Fullmetal Alchemist, Demon Slayer, Fate) and merchandise.
This partnership likely triggered Nintendo’s legal response. While Palworld posed no direct threat to Pokémon’s game sales (given Nintendo’s platform exclusivity), its expansion into anime, toys, and other media raised alarms. Nintendo, rather than competing creatively, chose to deploy its legal arsenal.
Nintendo’s Trump Card: A Bulletproof Patent
The lawsuit focuses on patent infringement, not copyright, meaning the issue isn’t creature designs but gameplay mechanics. Palworld is primarily a survival-crafting game with ARK-like elements—its only Pokémon-like feature is the creature-capture system. Here, Nintendo holds the winning hand.
While the concept of taming monsters isn’t patentable (pioneered by Megami Tensei in 1987 and Dragon Quest V in 1992), Nintendo and The Pokémon Company patented the specific capture method:
Throwing a capture item (e.g., a Poké Ball) at a creature.
Determining success.
Transferring ownership to the player.
Displaying capture odds via colors/graphics.
Patent #7545191 (approved August 22, 2024, after expedited review) covers this, alongside divisional patents for riding mechanics (#7528390) and capture details (#7493117, #7505854). Though the lawsuit doesn’t specify which patents were violated, experts suspect these are Nintendo’s weapons.
Our Take on the Lawsuit
Legally, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company are within their rights—Pocketpair knowingly skirted close to their patented mechanics. A tweaked capture system (e.g., ground traps à la Monster Hunter) might have avoided this.
Ethically, however, Nintendo’s actions are reprehensible. Yet again, the industry giant leverages its legal and financial might against a smaller studio, stifling competition rather than innovating. Pokémon’s captive audience and platform exclusivity make Palworld no real threat. Nintendo’s refusal to evolve its own franchise, paired with its litigious tactics, only damages its reputation among players who crave originality.
