Nintendo’s ongoing lawsuit withPalworlddeveloper/publisher Pocketpair just got a bombshell of an update. It was revealed thatNintendo sued Pocketpairlast September, alleging thePokemon-inspired survival game had infringed on several of Nintendo’s patents revolving around various game mechanics. Representatives for Pocketpair have consistently argued that Nintendo’s patents are invalid in the first place, and, while Nintendo has its supporters, public sympathy has generally leaned towards the indie developers' side.
Nintendo is an industry titan that rarely loses a lawsuit. However, these recent developments seem to demonstrate internal uncertainty regarding the outcome of this case. And while there’s plenty of time for the two studios to hash it out in court, the way things are going right now,I find it difficult to foresee this case being judged in Nintendo’s favor.
Nintendo’s Recent Patent Update Is Making Waves
Patent Changes Are Unusual
Last week,Nintendo filed to correct three of the patentsinvolved in the ongoing lawsuitwith the Japan Patent Office. This is technically legal, as long as the patent modifications don’t include any new “technical matter,” according toGames Fray.
Sure enough, the patent modifications are minor, andonly revolve around the wording of the game mechanics Nintendo claims ownership of. Perhaps the most-discussed alteration adds the phrasing “even when” to its patent regarding mountable creatures, whichGames Fraysingled out as unusual language for a patent in accusing Nintendo of “trying to complicate things for the purpose of putting up a huge smokescreen.”
Even so,Nintendo’s last-minute patent changes have provoked outrage fromPalworldfans. Manyeven called for a boycottof Nintendo products to express their frustration at what they felt was an unjustified lawsuit. While nothing of the sort has materialized yet, at least not on a large scale, it goes to show that public attitudes towards Nintendo in this case are shifting.
Is Nintendo’s Move Desperation Or Something Else?
Patent Changes Can Have Many Causes
Many were quick to point atNintendo’s patent changes as a sign of desperation. Pocketpair’s defense, which has called Nintendo’s patents invalid on the basis thatmany other games use similar mechanics, has made a strong case. PerGames Fray, Pocketpair has also presented sufficient evidence that its own work onPalworldpredates the priority dates of Nintendo’s patents.
However,Nintendo isn’t trying to changewhatit has a patent on, in order to ensure thatPalworldfits the definition and is found guilty of infringement. That simply wouldn’t work; it’d have to file a new patent in order to do so, which would almost certainly not be approved at this stage.
Instead,Games Frayargues,it may be an attempt to complicate the language around its patentsin order to stymie the court, in the hopes that the case might be judged in its favor amid the confusion.Games Fraycalls these changes unusual, referring to them as “a Hail Mary: a desperate attempt to win by doing something odd.”
Palworld May End Up Winning Against Nintendo
Pocketpair Has A Good Case
Ultimately, only Nintendo’s lawyers know what’s really going on with the patent changes. But, as an outside observer, I have to admit thatit doesn’t look good for Nintendo. I know that if I were a judge, or sitting on a jury in a patent infringement case, and I discovered that the plaintiff had filed for minor changes to their patent’s wording in the midst of it, I’d raise an eyebrow.
I can’t imagine that Nintendo’s recent patent changes won’t be discussed as part of its ongoing case, and I can’t imagine that they’ll be viewed favorably.This could be the first sign of Nintendo’s impending lossagainst Pocketpair.
Nintendo is notoriously litigious, having sued sheet music sites,Smashtournament organizers, fan games, et cetera, whenever there’s so much as a whiff of infringement. It’s a big company, too, with lots of money to throw at high-profile lawyers and long-term legal struggles. It doesn’t often lose - but never say never.
Nintendo recentlylost a copyright infringement case against a Chilean grocery store coincidentally named Super Mario. Its proprietor successfully argued that Nintendo didn’t have the exclusive rights to the Super Mario name when it came to selling groceries - only games, toys, and just about everything else.
Nintendo gets away with a lotbased on its family-friendly image and reputation as a titan of the gaming industry. Butmight doesn’t always make right, and its legal losses, though sporadic, prove that. We could be witnessing another such case happening in real time.
Pocketpair has a solid legal defense: lots of games include similar mechanics in which you can switch rapidly between riding different creatures, and Nintendo certainly didn’t invent the concept of a creature-collecting game. While more specific and confusingly-worded patents could give it the upper hand, Pocketpair has already presented evidence arguing that it had already demonstrated some of these gameplay mechanics before Nintendo had even filed for a patent.
Besides that, with the recent patent changes, it seems likely that even Nintendo has seen the writing on the wall. The case isn’t over yet, but a victory forPalworldseems likely to me - we’ll just have to wait and see how it all pans out.
