Nintendo's patent lawsuit against Palworld It has been interpreted differently by a variety of legal and industry experts, and some hoping that the resulting legal battle will last a long timeSome argue that Nintendo wouldn't make any move unless it was sure I could win in court and Others think this may be exaggerated. for the company's well-known legal team.
Haley MacLean, Attorney at Law Voyer's Law The video game specialist says that it is currently difficult to predict the effects of the lawsuit, since we do not even know the patents in question. There is fair speculation that a Pokeball-related patent is at stake.but sees room for outcomes that include tweaks to Palworld's mechanics and the temporary or permanent removal of the survival game from stores.
In an interview with GamesRadar+, MacLean discusses Nintendo's brief statement revealing the lawsuit. “For Japan (and many other jurisdictions as well), patent infringement is the unauthorized commercial use by a third party of a product or service. [claimed] “An invention is an invention,” he explains. “The scope of what is protected by the patent determines whether an act constitutes an infringement of that scope. There is both direct and indirect infringement. Without making things too complicated, Nintendo has to prove that Pocketpair's commercial actions infringed its patent and that it did not give them consent to do so.”
“Japan may have more case law compared to, say, the US, pointing to the success of an infringement ruling on the specific patents that Nintendo is using,” he adds. “They may have even won previous infringement cases on the patents they intend to use against Pocketpair in Japanese courts in the past.” He points to Nintendo’s successful lawsuit against Japanese company Colopl in 2017, which was based on six different patents. We don’t yet know if any of those same patents are involved in this Palworld lawsuit, but the root precedent is there.
Nintendo claims that Palworld also infringes on “several” patents, and MacLean notes that the company has “dozens and dozens of patents not only on gameplay mechanics, but also on in-game menu functionality, touch screen functionality, controller functionality, console functionality,” and more. If Nintendo successfully argues that Palworld is using its ideas without consent, Pocketpair could end up facing a number of changes, penalties, or other requirements. As a reminder, Nintendo’s initial post reads:
“The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the defendants and damages, alleging that the 'Palworld' game developed and sold by the defendants infringes multiple patents.”
Some experts expect the case to be settled out of court with a lump sum payment agreement, and likely a hefty sum given Palworld’s success and Pocketpair’s deep pockets. “Gaming legal issues are often settled out of court, but a prediction of what that settlement might look like and the amount it might be is something no one person could determine without having access to all the facts of the issues,” MacLean says.
She finds it easier to imagine outcomes like: “(1) Pocketpair not being allowed to re-release in certain jurisdictions, (2) Pocketpair having to pay licensing fees and keep any infringing mechanics, (3) Pocketpair having to completely remove Palworld's patented mechanics and re-release, (4) injunction periods where Palworld has to be removed from all stores for a period of time, etc.” If such an injunction were to apply, it might only be temporary, and “might only be for certain jurisdictions.” But naturally, “Nintendo would try to extend that injunction as broadly as possible, while Pocketpair would try to limit it as much as possible.”
MacLean agrees with the sentiment that Palworld's global successIn addition to its widely publicized efforts in the areas of platforms, multimedia and merchandising, Nintendo has reportedly fueled the debate and helped push for action. Although it is known for its litigiousness, it would not pursue just anyone in court. “Just look at Etsy. Thousands and thousands of Pokémon keychains, t-shirts and figurines made without Nintendo's consent, but the legal costs of sending a letter to all those people would probably not be worth it financially for them.”
For Nintendo, this has another benefit, too, MacLean adds. “Nintendo would also view these kinds of enforcement measures as a kind of investment in imposing a tacit fear of retaliation in the marketplace for other companies, as if to say, 'Look what we did to this guy, don't betray us and we won't do it to you too.' Even if they had no intention of re-enforcing these patents, the fear would still be there to deter other companies.”
Palworld developer responds to Nintendo's lawsuit, saying it will “do everything we can” to ensure indie developers “are not hindered or discouraged from pursuing their creative ideas.”