Japan Patent Office puts Nintendo ball-throwing patent rejection under review

Japan's Patent Office is now reviewing its own rejection of a Nintendo-linked patent tied to the Palworld lawsuit, and it is doing so after issuing a critique that one patent professional called “rarely seen in standard patent practice.” The patent at the center is Patent Publication No. 2026-077713, which describes Pokemon's typical “in-game monster-capturing system,” according to Automaton. The key point is not just that Nintendo lost. It is that the Office’s reasoning is now being tested on appeal while the broader Palworld litigation ecosystem stays inflamed.

Here is what the Office originally found unpersuasive. It was apparently unimpressed by Nintendo’s argument that selecting a ball displayed at the bottom right of the screen causes Ash to throw it, and if it hits Pikachu then Pikachu can be captured. Instead, the Office cited a gameplay video from 13 years ago tied to the unofficial indie game Pokemon: Generations. Even the way people are reacting to that record shows how emotionally charged this fight has become. The video now has new comments reading, “This game defeated Nintendo in court,” and, “You saved Palworld.” The Patent Office’s position, though, is that the prior art discussion is about patent logic, not about collateral fights.

Nintendo did not accept that framing. In a counterargument, Nintendo told the Patent Office it “acted extremely inappropriately” by citing a gameplay source described as copyright-infringing, namely Pokemon: Generations, in rejecting Nintendo’s ball-throwing patent. That is an important nuance for anyone watching this from the outside: Nintendo is trying to move the discussion from “was it obvious” to “was it procedurally fair to cite.” In patent practice, those are different debates with different burdens. In other words, Nintendo is asking the Office to treat the citation as disqualifying.

The Patent Office’s response was blunt, and it largely shut that door. It said Nintendo’s argument “has no bearing on determining inventive step.” Inventive step, in plain English, is the part of patentability where an examiner asks whether the claimed idea is more than just an expected combination of known elements. The Office then added that if Nintendo truly wanted to talk about copyright infringement, “accuracy should take precedence.” That’s where the Office’s critique turns into the sort of language that tends to get highlighted in news coverage: it argued that, if you insist on avoiding using Pokemon references, then the notice should spell out cumbersome substitutes like “an object in the form of a small animal” instead of Pokemon, “an object in the form of a boy wearing a red cap” instead of Ash, and “a spherical object with a red upper half and a white lower half” instead of Poke Ball.

The Patent Office continued with another logic point that matters for decision-makers. “However,” it said, “even with such rephrasing, the logical structure of the grounds for refusal remains unchanged.” Translation: even if you want to redact the names for legal or copyright reasons, the core reasoning for why the claim fails the inventive step test does not magically disappear. That is also why the “rarely seen” characterization lands. Patent offices are supposed to be precise, but this level of directness in pushing back is uncommon in typical public disputes. It reads like the Office was done with litigating around the edges.

And yet Nintendo still has a pathway forward. The source reports that Nintendo filed a petition against the rejection and it seemingly succeeded in getting the issue reopened. The Patent Office website now categorizes Patent Publication No. 2026-077713 as having its “rejection decision under review.” So the story does not end in a clean victory lap. The Office is re-checking the decision, which means the outcome could swing, even if the initial rejection looked tough.

Why does this matter beyond the nerdy details of “inventive step”? Because the patent family connected to this publication belongs to the same umbrella as other patents relevant to the Palworld legal battle. The source notes that this patent is not the one at the center of Pokemon's legal battle against Palworld, but it is in the same patent family. Approval of this application “certainly wouldn't help Palworld.” For execs and investors tracking these matters, this is the kind of slow-moving regulatory chess that can still affect product timelines, settlement posture, and licensing leverage.

There is also a second-order strategic angle flagged by a Japanese patent law expert cited by the source: Nintendo may have strengthened its claims specifically to target Palworld. Even if the detailed claim text is not reproduced here, the implication is clear enough. This is not just defending a broad IP moat. It is iterative, targeted, and responsive to ongoing litigation. For any board member or operator watching IP disputes in games, this is a reminder that regulatory review can become a parallel battlefield to court proceedings, with appeal timelines creating uncertainty that does not neatly map to marketing schedules or roadmap commitments.