Pocketpair shares Nintendo, The Pokémon Company’s demands from Palworld lawsuit
Palworld developer Pocketpair has shared more details from the lawsuit it faces from both Nintendo and The Pokémon Company over alleged similarities between the latter’s titular franchise and its own monster-based survival game.
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company first filed a lawsuit against Pocketpair on September 19 – eight months after Palworld launched – claiming the title infringed on multiple patent rights.
Details of which patents were not shared, but now Pocketpair has specified the three patents is it accused of infringing upon via a post on its website.
The company also reported that Nintendo and The Pokémon Company are seeking an injunction against Palworld, as well as payment of at least ¥5 million ($33,683) plus late payment damages to each company.
Pocketpair intends to defend its game, stating: “We will continue to assert our position in this case through future legal proceedings.”
As previously speculated by the media and legal experts – including MBHB associate Andrew Velzen in an analysis for GamesIndustry.biz – the patents in question are:
- JP7545191, which refers to a system for using capture items that can catch characters encountered in a virtual space
- JP7493117, which refers to an aiming system for deploying such capture items
- JP7528390, which refers to a system for rideable characters
The Pocketpair post reports these were all applied for and registered after Palworld first launched on Jaunary 19, 2024 – as was observed by Velzen in his article for GamesIndustry.biz.
Velzen added that Nintendo has also applied for counterpart patents in the US, although some were filed as far back as September 2022.
In his article, he noted that the outcome of this case could have significant repercussions for the video games industry.
“In recent years, the video game industry has somewhat moved away from patents, especially for in-game features,” he wrote. “If Nintendo is successful here, though, perhaps this paradigm could be in question.”
