An unexpected legal conflict has erupted in Japan, attracting the attention not only of the professional community but also of millions of video game fans. The country's patent office and the Nintendo Corporation have engaged in a sharp public dispute over an application to register the monster-catching mechanic that has become the hallmark of the Pokemon franchise.

Patent Rejection: "Throwing a Ball" Is Not an Invention

The focus was on patent publication No. 2026-077713. The document describes the standard game mechanic of capturing creatures using a Pokeball. However, the agency rejected the application, arguing that the idea of "throwing a ball at a character and catching them" does not possess a sufficient "inventive level".

As proof that the mechanic is not unique, regulators used a gameplay video from thirteen years ago from the unofficial indie game Pokemon: Generations. This decision instantly sparked a storm of reactions online: users jokingly claimed that "an indie game beat Nintendo in court" and that this precedent could "save" the developers of Palworld.

Nintendo's Response and the Agency's Sarcasm

Nintendo Corporation disagreed with the decision and countered the rejection, stating that the agency "acted in an extremely inappropriate manner." In their complaint, the company focused on the fact that a game infringing on copyright was used as an argument. Essentially, Nintendo tried to discredit the source rather than challenge the logic of the rejection on its merits.

In the response letter, the regulator noted that Nintendo's arguments "are irrelevant to the determination of the inventive level." However, the dialogue did not end there. The agency delivered, perhaps, the most sarcastic remark in the history of patent disputes, suggesting that Nintendo rephrase the application if they insist on precision:

  • Instead of Pikachu, use "an object in the shape of a small yellow animal".
  • Instead of Ash — "an object in the shape of a boy in a red cap".
  • Instead of a Pokeball — "a spherical object with a red upper and white lower half".

The agency emphasized that even with such rephrasing, the logical structure of the grounds for rejection remains unchanged.

Legal Significance and Consequences

Attorney Kiyoshi Kurihara noted that such biting language "is extremely rare in standard patent practice," which in itself speaks to the intensity of the confrontation. Nevertheless, Nintendo did not give up and filed a petition against the rejection decision. At the moment, the status of the application has been changed to "rejection decision under review," meaning that the corporation has formally achieved the right to have the case reviewed.

It is important to understand the context: this patent is not the one at the center of Nintendo's current lawsuit against Palworld, however, it belongs to the same patent family. If the application is eventually approved, it will create additional legal pressure on Pocketpair — the developers of Palworld, who have been fending off lawsuits from Nintendo since 2024.