Nintendo's attempts to secure patents for Pokémon-related systems have encountered significant resistance from the Japan Patent Office (JPO), with examiners issuing a blunt rebuke of the company's defense against prior rejections. The JPO's examiner described the exchange as containing "things rarely seen in standard patent practice," indicating a notable level of frustration with Nintendo's arguments.
At the core of the dispute is Nintendo's Patent Application 2026-019762, one of several submitted to protect mechanics related to catching, battling, and riding Pokémon. While the company has secured some patents, the JPO initially refused this specific application in April 2026, citing a lack of "inventive step" and similarity to "prior art." Notably, the application referenced a 13-year-old gameplay video of an unofficial, fan-made Pokémon game that exhibited mechanics similar to those Nintendo sought to patent.
Nintendo contested this refusal, arguing that a video of a fan game does not constitute disqualifying prior art because a video is not a video game. Furthermore, the company asserted that as an unlicensed work, the video represented copyright infringement, and therefore, illegal content could not be considered obvious prior art. Nintendo also took issue with the examiner's use of official Pokémon names like "Bulbasaur" and "Pikachu" in the refusal, suggesting the examiner should have referred to them as infringing characters. "It is extremely inappropriate for the examiner to deliberately misidentify the infringing product as if it were a genuine product," Nintendo stated.
The JPO examiner, however, dismissed Nintendo's claims, stating that copyright infringement has no bearing on patentability under Japanese law and is "irrelevant to the inventive step judgment," a view considered standard among patent practitioners. The examiner characterized Nintendo's argument that the use of official names was an issue as "an absurd misunderstanding," clarifying that such terminology would not alter the patentability assessment. The examiner also found Nintendo's objection to using a gameplay video as evidence to be unfounded, deeming the idea that a video could not demonstrate software concepts "too ridiculous to consider."
Despite the strong rejection, Nintendo has a three-month window to petition for an appeal trial before JPO judges. The company can also file further divisional patent applications with revised claims. This particular patent dispute is separate from Nintendo's ongoing legal action against Palworld developer Pocketpair.