Nintendo's Creature Capture patent was awarded in a Palworld trial

Japan's patent office has rejected a Nintendo application related to it Palworld trial, citing lack of originality. The decision raises questions about the validity of several Nintendo patents describing creature capture systems that are central to the company's complaint against Palworld.

Cattiva vs Pikachu Palworld vs Pokemon fight against red background with faint crt lines — A composite image with Cattiva from *Palworld* and Pikachu from *Pokémon* clashes on a red background. Faint CRT-like lines were added to the image using a color burn blending mode.

September 19th was the first anniversary of Nintendo and The Pokemon Company filing a joint patent lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair. That's what the duo claims Palworld infringes three of their creature capture and rideable creature exchange patents. The case, brought before the Tokyo District Court, has not yet come to trial.

JPO says Nintendo's Monster Capture patent application is not original

In late October 2025, the Japanese Patent Office rejected Nintendo's patent application no. 2024-031879, which is related to the creature capture family of patents that Palworld accused of trespassing. A JPO patent examiner found that the application lacks originality to be considered an invention, citing prior art such as Monster Hunter 4, ARK: Survival Evolvedgacha browser game Kantai collectionPocketpair's own Craftopiaand even Pokémon GO. All of these were released before the priority date of December 2021 from the rejected application.

Nintendo patents were rejected related to the Palworld process patent family — JPO's illustration of a patent family related to the rejected patent application no. 2024-031879. Game Rant added tags to illustrate how it relates to the Palworld process.

Nintendo's Palworld process suddenly looks shakier

Nintendo has 60 days to amend its application or appeal the decision from the date of the rejection notice, giving it until the end of December 2025 to do so. Since the application is not cited in Palworld patent process directly, its rejection will not have a direct impact on the pending case. But as explained by Games Fray's analyst Florian Mueller, the recently rejected application is a “key building block” in Nintendo's strategy to capture a wide range of system implementations of creatures. It is the child of patent JP7493117 and the parent of JP7545191, both of which are mentioned in Nintendo's complaint.

Super Mario vs Pengullet Nintendo vs Palworld red background 2x1 composite — A 2:1 composite depicting Super Mario and *Palworld*'s Pengullet look like they're about to collide with each other on a red background that matches Nintendo's trademark palette.

If a central component of a patent family is struck down, related patents may face increased scrutiny or validity challenges. As such, while this rejection does not directly affect the ongoing case, it potentially strengthens Pocketpair's defense strategy challenging the validity of Nintendo's anti-Palworld claims. Presiding Judge Motoyuki Nakashima is not bound by the JPO's decision, whether final or not, but it may influence his decision-making.

Another patent central to the ongoing dispute is also facing some problems: an implementation of a ride-swapping system (JP7528390) that Nintendo moved to change in the middle of Palworld trial in July. Amending a patent during active litigation is unusual, and the vague language used in the proposed amendment was even more unusual, Mueller said at the time. The amendment request delayed the proceedings, which required parts of the case to be reconsidered. The trial is now expected to stretch well into 2026.