Nintendo Tries To Obtain Touchscreen-Specific Patent On Monster Capturing (gamesfray.com) 27
Nintendo is trying to secure a touchscreen-specific monster-catching patent that could be relevant to Palworld Mobile. Japan's patent office has initially rejected the application for lacking an inventive step over prior art, but the company could appeal or amend the claims. Games Fray reports: The Japan Patent Office (JPO) has now made a new monster-catching patent application by Nintendo public. Patent Application No. 2026-019762 covers monster-catching of the kind already asserted against the PC and console versions of Palworld and is from the same patent family as two of the three patents Nintendo is already asserting against Palworld, but with a touchscreen focus. Potential targets are the upcoming Palworld Mobile game and Tencent's Roco Kingdom: World, which is presently available only in China but likely to expand internationally. Nintendo filed the application this year with a request for a fast-tracked review. The JPO has indeed been quick, and the response is that Nintendo's application lacks an inventive step over the prior art.
Nintendo already amended the claims in February and can try to amend them again. It can try to persuade the examiner and potentially appeal the decision. But the initial rejection suggests that Nintendo will not obtain the desired touchscreen monster-catching patent quickly. The rejection was communicated on April 24, 2026. Nintendo could abandon the application now, but Nintendo being Nintendo, they are more likely to try to persuade the examiner to arrive at a different conclusion, even though the reasons for the rejection are strong. In many patent examination processes, the initial rejection is essentially just an invitation to present one's best arguments. Here, however, the rejection notice is so well-reasoned that it will be an uphill battle for Nintendo. Nintendo's application would cover a touchscreen-controlled game in which a player moves through "a field in a virtual space," uses "a capture item for capturing a field character," and can summon "a battle character" to fight that creature. During combat, the game would display "a plurality of commands including at least an attack command and an item command," selected through "an operation input using the touch panel."
The key claim is that when the capture item is used "during a battle" or "in a non-battle state," the game performs "a capture success determination," and, if successful, "the field character is captured and set to a state owned by the player."
Nintendo already amended the claims in February and can try to amend them again. It can try to persuade the examiner and potentially appeal the decision. But the initial rejection suggests that Nintendo will not obtain the desired touchscreen monster-catching patent quickly. The rejection was communicated on April 24, 2026. Nintendo could abandon the application now, but Nintendo being Nintendo, they are more likely to try to persuade the examiner to arrive at a different conclusion, even though the reasons for the rejection are strong. In many patent examination processes, the initial rejection is essentially just an invitation to present one's best arguments. Here, however, the rejection notice is so well-reasoned that it will be an uphill battle for Nintendo. Nintendo's application would cover a touchscreen-controlled game in which a player moves through "a field in a virtual space," uses "a capture item for capturing a field character," and can summon "a battle character" to fight that creature. During combat, the game would display "a plurality of commands including at least an attack command and an item command," selected through "an operation input using the touch panel."
The key claim is that when the capture item is used "during a battle" or "in a non-battle state," the game performs "a capture success determination," and, if successful, "the field character is captured and set to a state owned by the player."
Just a reminder they didn't invent Pokemon (Score:3, Interesting)
So it's patently ridiculous, pun intended, for them to be trying to get patents on something they didn't come up with on their own. Never mind the obvious ridiculousness of everything about this.
Re: (Score:3)
The basic idea, which their own people have admitted, came from a old Japanese live action TV series called ultra 7 which is in the Ultraman series.
I'm pretty sure the concept of capturing and taming wild animals came from the real-world concept of domestication, which (and I shouldn't have to say this) predates the invention of television.
And fanciful monsters that don't actually exist? Yeah, that literary trope is as old as the written word.
Re: (Score:2)
B..b..but this is ${prior_art} using the Internet!
Re:Just a reminder they didn't invent Pokemon (Score:4, Insightful)
There were also two Megami Tensei games and the first Shin Megami Tensei released by the time Pokemon Red and Green were released in Japan in 1994.
They never should have had a patent on that, and they shouldn't be allowed to add 'with a stylus' to the end of it and suddenly patent something they couldn't before... just like they shouldn't be able to add 'on the internet'.
Re: (Score:1)
Patent law in Japan works different than in the rest of the world.
And your stupid idea, just because someone else did it already: is just that, stupid.
I know an anecdote about lightbulbs. One company (A) sued another one (B) for patent infringement. It was about the windings. So A claimed B copied the improved winding that ensured better conduction or something. Company defended by saying, close to the bulb we have this "rim". Our conduction is better because of that rim, we do not know anything about windi
Re: (Score:2)
And your stupid idea, just because someone else did it already: is just that, stupid.
No, it proves that the idea already existed and therefore the public gains nothing from the grant of the patent. On the contrary, the public loses competition in the market, has to pay for litigation (taxes, time of the courts / judges that could be spent on other cases, etc.), runs the risk of enabling corruption ("that's a nice product you've got there, be ashame if something happened to it"), chills innovation (now you've got abunch of people trying to avoid the genre for fear of angering Nintendo), and
Re: (Score:1)
All your points are stupid.
As the public has nothing to do with "(taxes, time of the courts / judges that could be spent on other cases, etc.),"
The parties going to court pay for that.
No, it proves that the idea already existed and therefore the public gains nothing from the grant of the patent.
That is not the goal of the patent system. The goal is that the inventor can exploit his idea alone for a limited time.
Of course once the higher goal was: he would license it for a reasonable fee, and hence would he
Patent abuse (Score:3, Informative)
This makes as much sense as having a patent on driving games or shooting games. It is lazy lawfare.
Software patents a net drain to econ (Score:2)
Patents on software are a net drain of resources on our economy. Most software "inventions" are not in giant Edison-like labs, but situational happenstance. As an incentive system, it sucks. And the patent office can't tell the rare gems from trash patents such that the net result is waste on trash patents.
Nukem!
Re: Software patents a net drain to econ (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
is that when the capture item is used "during a battle" or "in a non-battle state,"
So the player hit a button on a menu.
the game performs "a capture success determination," and, if successful,
A random number generator is called.
"the field character is captured and set to a state owned by the player."
A copy of the data is made and an ID number is written on it.
They're essentially patenting drawing a random number and awarding a prize with someone's name written on it. I'm sure the lottery industry would love to have a word with Nintendo about those royalties.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't that a copyright claim? That would be why they tried patents this time.
Nothing new from Nintendo. They've always been greedy, grasping, litigious douchebags.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks won't work either. As PocketPair and Palworld make no attempt to claim that they're Nintendo or selling Pokemon.
Patents were Nintendo's only option left, and thus we're getting a bunch of BS patents in a desperate attempt by Nintendo to prevent a new competitor from entering the market. (That just so happens to be backed by
Re: (Score:2)
There were two separate things there. Yeah they lost that court battle, but around the same time the USPTO granted them some kind of patent for RPGs where you build the party as you go.
The USPTO then revoked that patent a few months ago, because it should never have been issued in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
more than two. they also had similar things happen in the JPO apparently. Or something like that.
Stupid patents (Score:2)
Can I patent insulting someone on the internet?
Because I think it could become really BIG.
Re: (Score:1)
My father did prior art of that in the college ARPANET lab in the late 70's.
Re: (Score:2)
If the internet was invented for porn (and it was), then namecalling was the 2nd use.
Trying to patent the mouth (Score:1)
Placoderms invented the mouth 440 million years ago. That's very prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, but did the invent extremely overpriced expensive cardboard?
Pretty sure Ticketmaster has some prior art in that department.
Pokémon Go (Score:3)
Game mechanics should not be patentable (Score:3)