A rather controversial gameplay patent from Nintendo has hit a major barrier in the US, following a non-final rejection issued by a patent examiner that challenges the validity of all of the patent’s claims. This is months down the track from Nintendo’s lawsuit against Pocketpair, the creators of the open-world survival and monster-catching game, Palworld.

Nintendo has attempted to crack down on the mechanic of summoning a secondary character that can either act autonomously or be directly controlled. Of course, this has generated numerous discussions, comparisons, and criticisms online. As of this latest update, progression on Nintendo’s side appears to have hit a very significant roadblock – one that may lead to the patent being completely revoked.

It’s Officially Not Looking Good For Nintendo’s Controversial Pokemon Patents

Obviously, the concept of game mechanics that enable players to summon secondary characters that can act autonomously or be controlled directly is a rather familiar one. It’s been seen in many different games across various genres over the years, both before and following the Pokemon series. Because of this, the patent has fallen under scrutiny, facing major criticism online across the industry as a whole, both from gamers, legal experts, and industry observers.

Following such concerns, the decision was made to reopen the case through a reexamination that was previously made by the United States Patent and Trademark Office leadership. Fast forwarding to now, the first step has been taken by the agency’s Central Reexamination Unit, and it is not looking good – an Office action has been issued that rejects every one of the patent’s 26 claims.

However, it is important to consider that despite the word ‘rejection’ being in play, this does not mean that the patent will immediately be revoked. Instead, it does signal the beginning of a process that could ultimately lead to such results, depending on the findings.

The examiner’s reasoning does not rely on existing video games as evidence, instead basing the decision on previously published patent applications, otherwise referred to as ‘prior art’. Included in this category are filings from the likes of not just Bandai Namco and Komani as competitors, but also previous filings from Nintendo, too.

What is Next For Nintendo and the controversial patent?

If an invention is deemed ‘obvious’ based on existing knowledge, it does not meet the threshold for protection. By compiling elements from multiple separate filings, it was concluded that the patented system would have been obvious to the typical game developer. On the other hand, it is also possible that the complexity of combining multiple prior references could allow Nintendo to argue that these combinations are not as straightforward as the examiner suggests.

There is a limited window for response from the company, with extensions available. It is expected that the legal team will be challenging both the interpretation of the prior art and the assumption that developers would naturally merge these ideas. Two separate invalidity arguments for each claim have been presented by the examiner, though, so even if Nintendo is successful in one outcome following their reasoning, the other could still prove to be a hurdle.

As of right now, the outcome is uncertain, but the entire scenario has certainly been one of the most notable legal cases related to gaming in recent years. There’s a strong chance that following the outcome, the industry may see changes in how gameplay mechanics are protected for the future. It has certainly been an interesting look into innovation and ownership within modern game design, and where limits could, and should (or should not) be drawn.

With the fate of Nintendo’s patent depending on the next round of debate, it currently sits within a legal limbo of sorts. No matter which way the results pan out, it will most definitely be an interesting outcome that many gaming enthusiasts and game creators will want to stay tuned to find out.