“An embarrassing failure of the US patent system”
The world of gaming has been thrown into debate after Nintendo and The Pokémon Company secured a new patent in the United States that has sparked outrage among developers, legal experts, and fans. The patent, filed in 2023 and approved earlier this month without resistance, covers the mechanic of summoning a “sub character” in a game to fight another character. At first glance, this might sound like a technical description of Pokémon battles, but the scope of the patent is broader and could potentially affect other titles that use similar summoning mechanics.
This development has led to questions not just about Nintendo’s intentions but also about the wider patent system in the United States. The approval process has been described as unusually quick and lacking the scrutiny that normally accompanies such applications. Critics argue that the decision to grant this patent could have far-reaching effects on creativity and competition in the gaming industry.
The situation gained more attention when Don McGowan, the former Chief Legal Officer of The Pokémon Company, weighed in on the matter. McGowan, who worked on Pokémon’s legal affairs for years, believes the patent is unlikely to hold weight in practice. Speaking to Eurogamer, he said that because there are decades of prior examples of games using summoning mechanics, the patent would probably fail in court if challenged. In his words, developers could simply “ignore” it. His view is that the patent is too broad and too rooted in ideas that have existed long before Pokémon Scarlet and Violet introduced their updated summoning system.
The criticism does not stop there. Patent lawyers and intellectual property experts have called this case an “embarrassing failure of the US patent system.” Kirk Sigmon, a lawyer who specialises in game patents, argued that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has failed in its duty by allowing such broad claims to pass without serious examination. According to him, patents like this cast a long shadow over the industry, discouraging developers from experimenting with mechanics that may now appear risky to include.
Sigmon pointed out that the USPTO reviewed only a small number of prior patents and documents before approving this case. The process was so brief that it raised suspicions about whether the examiner fully considered the vast history of similar mechanics in video games. He argued that this is not just a technical oversight but a problem that exposes flaws in how patents are granted in the United States. He went further, saying the USPTO “dropped the ball” and has effectively handed Nintendo a weapon it can use to threaten competitors, even if the patent would not stand up to deep legal scrutiny.
This is not an isolated case. Nintendo has recently secured several patents covering other gameplay systems, including movement mechanics that resemble those criticised in its legal dispute with Palworld. The speed at which these patents have been granted has shocked observers, with some legal experts claiming that the system is being bent in favour of large corporations with the resources to file and push applications.
At the centre of the debate is whether Nintendo will actively enforce the patent. McGowan believes it will simply be ignored by other developers, who can easily show that games with summoning mechanics have existed for decades. He compared the situation to the infamous “loading screen patent” once held by Bandai Namco, which became widely mocked because of its overreach. His point is that history will repeat itself, and Nintendo’s claim will not survive once challenged.
Yet, others see danger even if Nintendo never files a lawsuit. Legal expert Richard Hoeg observed that the very existence of the patent could scare smaller studios away from using similar mechanics, as the risk of being sued by a company as large as Nintendo might deter them from innovating. This “muddying of the waters,” as Hoeg describes it, can be enough to halt competition without a single case ever going to court. In other words, the patent does not need to be enforced aggressively to have an effect—it simply has to exist.
The controversy also touches on Nintendo’s ongoing feud with PocketPair, the makers of Palworld, which has faced accusations of borrowing too heavily from Pokémon. That lawsuit has already led PocketPair to make changes to its game, and the new patents could give Nintendo even more leverage in that dispute. Many believe the timing of the approvals strengthens Nintendo’s hand, allowing it to pressure developers of Pokémon-inspired titles in ways it could not before.
Beyond the legal battle, the issue has broader consequences for the industry. If patents covering such common mechanics are granted too easily, developers might find themselves navigating a minefield where every idea risks overlapping with someone else’s registered claim. This creates uncertainty, increases legal costs, and reduces willingness to experiment. For small studios in particular, the threat of a lawsuit from a major corporation can be enough to crush a project before it ever launches.
Despite the uproar, Nintendo has not publicly commented in detail about how it intends to use these new patents. The company has a history of protecting its intellectual property aggressively, often taking swift legal action against fan projects, emulators, and competitors. Given this background, many assume Nintendo will not hesitate to use the patent if it suits its interests. Still, some industry voices hope the widespread criticism will discourage the company from going too far.
The future of this debate now depends on how courts and other developers respond. If McGowan’s prediction is correct, the patent may end up being ignored until someone challenges it formally, at which point prior art could be used to dismantle it. If, however, Nintendo uses it as a legal tool to pressure others, the consequences could reshape the industry’s approach to common game mechanics.
For now, the controversy has exposed not only Nintendo’s legal strategy but also deep flaws in the US patent system. Many feel that the granting of such patents without proper checks weakens the credibility of the office and harms innovation. The fear is that corporations will use vague or broad patents as weapons, not protections, leaving smaller creators vulnerable. Whether this patent becomes a lasting legal tool or a forgotten misstep remains to be seen, but it has already left its mark on the gaming community and the debate over intellectual property.
