Japan’s patent officials refuse Nintendo’s absurd Pokémon patent defense

In the high-stakes world of intellectual property, even beloved franchises like Pokémon can become battlegrounds for legal squabbles. Nintendo recently found itself embroiled in a particularly thorny dispute with the Japanese Patent Office (JPO), demonstrating that sometimes the fight over patents is less about innovation and more about vexing adherence to legal technicalities.

The friction point emerged when Nintendo attempted to secure patents related to Pokémon catching, battling, and riding systems. While the publisher has secured some wins in ongoing litigation, the specific battle over Patent Application 2026-019762 brought the entire legal circus into sharp focus.

The core issue revolved around what constituted “prior art”—the existing works that should prevent a new invention from being patented. The JPO initially rejected Nintendo’s application, finding that the mechanics described were too similar to pre-existing works. Specifically, the examiner pointed to a 13-year-old gameplay video of an unofficial, fan-made Pokémon game as evidence.

Nintendo immediately bristled at this assessment. They submitted a detailed written opinion contesting the refusal, arguing that citing a mere “video” was inappropriate. Their argument touched on both copyright infringement and the very concept of inventiveness.

Nintendo insisted that because the video was an unlicensed work using Pokémon designs, it constituted copyright infringement. Furthermore, they argued that treating a video as disqualifying prior art was absurd, especially since the names used in the video were official—like “Pikachu” and “Bulbasaur“—and not evidence of actual product manufacturing.

The dispute escalated into a classic clash between legal interpretation and creative reality. Nintendo argued that if an examiner deliberately misidentified fan-made content as authentic Pokémon products, it was simply an error, not a barrier to patentability. They sought to highlight the irony: how could someone claim an inventive step based on something that merely resembled a video rather than a tangible invention?

However, the JPO examiner delivered a response that was perhaps more memorable than any legal brief. Instead of engaging with the copyright claims about the fan game, the JPO squarely addressed Nintendo‘s complaints about terminology. The examiner suggested how the elements should have been described had they focused on objects rather than copyrighted characters.

The reasoning was clear: whether a work infringes copyright or not is irrelevant to judging an invention’s inventive step. The JPO noted that patent law does not contain provisions excluding inventions that infringe upon others’ copyrights, making the notion that this fact should impact patentability “irrelevant.”

The examiner concluded by pointing out the absurdity of demanding specific names for characters and objects in a legal setting. They essentially deployed advanced pedantry to illustrate that while Nintendo could argue vehemently about their rights, the fundamental standard of inventive step remained unchanged.

Ultimately, the JPO’s decision stood firm, showing that even when highly passionate parties try to apply intense legal scrutiny to creative works and fandom history, sometimes the outcome is less about legal maneuvering and more about recognizing the sheer absurdity of the pedantic dance.