Newly Granted Nintendo Patents An ‘Embarrassing Failure’ By The USPTO, Says Patent Attorney
Summary
Nintendo was recently granted two U.S. patents (US 12,409,387 and US 12,403,397) covering broad gameplay mechanics such as riding/flying systems and a summoning/battling loop involving “sub-characters.” Patent attorney Kirk Sigmon calls the grants an “embarrassing failure” of the USPTO because the mechanics appear obvious and supported by prior art, yet examiners offered little or no pushback during prosecution.
The story sits against ongoing litigation between Nintendo and PocketPair over Palworld, where overly broad Nintendo patents have already forced gameplay changes. Sigmon warns that weak patents like these enable costly litigation threats that can chill competition even if the patents wouldn’t ultimately survive a court challenge.
Key Points
- Nintendo received two recent patents for game mechanics: a riding/flying system (US 12,409,387) and a summoning/battling loop with “sub-characters” (US 12,403,397).
- Videogame patent lawyer Kirk Sigmon says the USPTO showed “alarmingly little resistance” in allowing these claims, marking a systemic failure.
- Both patents cover mechanics that many argue are obvious or have prior art predating Nintendo’s use in Pokémon games.
- Patent examination records reportedly show unusually little rejection or reasoned explanation for allowance — red flags for patent quality.
- These grants come amid Nintendo’s suit against PocketPair over Palworld; weak patents can be used as litigation leverage to intimidate smaller rivals.
- Challenging bad patents is expensive and slow, so even weak grants can cast a long shadow over the industry.
Context and relevance
This matters if you follow game development, intellectual property law, or competition in software: overly broad gameplay patents can give large firms disproportionate control over commonplace mechanics and force smaller studios to alter or remove features to avoid litigation. The piece highlights broader concerns about USPTO examination standards and how low-quality patents can distort markets and innovation.
Author style
Punchy — the piece flags a systemic problem with tangible consequences. If you care about fair competition or the future of game design, the details are worth your time.
Why should I read this?
Quick and dirty: if you make games, cover games, or care about the patent system, this is relevant. Nintendo’s new patents aren’t just academic — they can and likely will be used as weapons. The article saves you reading dry examination files by summarising the core problem: the USPTO allowed very broad claims with hardly any pushback, and that stinks for competition. Read it to know what to watch for next (and why small studios should be nervous).