It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendo-patents-in-game-characters-summoning-others-to-battle

The uncontested patent could now pose "a fundamental threat to creativity and innovation in the industry"

Nintendo has secured a new patent that protects a common gameplay mechanic wherein an in-game character to summon another sub-character to support it in battle.

As noted by Games Fray, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted Nintendo patent number 12,403,397 on September 2, 2025. Submitted in March 2023, the patent application was approved uncontested despite the mechanic already existing in prior games, both within and outside of Nintendo's own portfolio.

This means games that use features like those detailed below could now be in breach of Nintendo's copyright.

1. There must be a PC, console, or other computing device, and the game is stored on a drive or similar storage medium.
2. You can move a character in a virtual space.
3. You must be able to summon a character. They call it a “sub character” by which they mean it’s not the player character, but, for example, a little monster such as a Pokémon that the player character has at their disposal.
4. Then the logic branches out, with items 4 and 5 being mutually exclusive scenarios, before reuniting again in item 6.
5. This is about summoning the “sub character” in a place where there already is another character that it will then (when instructed to do so) fight.
6. This alternative scenario is about summoning the “sub character” at a position where there is no other character to fight immediately.
7. This final step is about sending the “sub character” in a direction and then letting an automatic battle ensue with another character. It is not clear whether this is even needed if one previously executed step (4) where the “sub character” will basically be thrown at another character.

As Games Fray stressed, the ramifications for the wider industry cannot be understated, and may now prompt other developers and publishers, in turn, to file patents to protect other common in-game mechanics.

"The ‘397 patent poses a fundamental threat to creativity and innovation in the games industry," the report stated. "That question is not specific to [the existing copyright lawsuit concerning] Palworld, but to a large number of games that already have that mechanic as well as future releases that will have it."
Patent link - https://gamesfray.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/US12403397B2-2025-09-02.pdf

So Nintendo just patented summoners / summoning for the next 20 years. Probably a stern response to Palworld and anyone else thinking of copying their formula. Wonder if it means all types of game studios are going to steer clear just to avoid being C&D'd by Nintendo too even if their games are nothing like Pokemon RPGs. And what creative workarounds devpubs will have to sub in for this mechanic.

I wonder what common video game tropes are going to be patented next.
Post edited September 11, 2025 by UnashamedWeeb
People go around different channels telling "Nintendo patenting summoning", but if you actually read or look at it a bit, there are several features that all need to apply for a patent infringement.
This article is misleading because there is no statue of limitations on challenging a patent in the US. If Nintendo tries to sue Square Enix, for example, because the latter releases another Final Fantasy game and includes the summoner class, the issue for Nintendo is going to be that the summoner class in Final Fantasy predates their patent. What this really is about though is that Nintendo is still very much butthurt over the existence of Palworld and other pokemon-like games, but Palworld especially.

While they're at it, Nintendo may as well put patents on 1) going into underground locations (aka dungeons) in video games to fight things and 2) scaled fantasy monsters (aka dragons) then go around trying to sue every single everyone that makes a game based on D&D as well as Wizards of the Coast, who currently owns D&D. Maybe toss in patents on elves just for fun while they're at it.
This is one patent I would think can be easily legally challenged in certain circumstances. WOTC and D&D style games have a very well documented and long-known precedent (in copyrighted writing as well as digital) with magic users summoning familiars as companions and necromancers summoning undead to fight long before Pokemon and Nintendo.
I wonder if this will affect the Jojo series.
Not to mention that Pokémon wasn't even the first creature battler/creature tamer game. You can acquire creatures and send them to battle on your behalf in such titles as Dragon Quest V and Robotrek (okay, here they're robots, not creatures), or the later Monster Rancher.
I suppose I will just have to stop being lazy and actually read the patent for myself in order to see how specific this patent is with regards to the Pokémon formula; until then, considering that the inventor is Shigeru Ohmori, someone who has not been with the Pokémon since its inception, I can only assume until I do read it that it's a more specific concept that Pokémon has developed over time and not generic creature summoning.
Reactionary media are inevitably going to oversimplify this headline to make bold sweeping claims, so it will be a requirement to get any semblance of truth.
avatar
SultanOfSuave: Not to mention that Pokémon wasn't even the first creature battler/creature tamer game. You can acquire creatures and send them to battle on your behalf in such titles as Dragon Quest V and Robotrek (okay, here they're robots, not creatures), or the later Monster Rancher.
I suppose I will just have to stop being lazy and actually read the patent for myself in order to see how specific this patent is with regards to the Pokémon formula; until then, considering that the inventor is Shigeru Ohmori, someone who has not been with the Pokémon since its inception, I can only assume until I do read it that it's a more specific concept that Pokémon has developed over time and not generic creature summoning.
Reactionary media are inevitably going to oversimplify this headline to make bold sweeping claims, so it will be a requirement to get any semblance of truth.
Nintendo: We don't want people to steal the things we stole!
This seems like a trivial patent to me.

The gaming community can only hope that someone in the industry files a revocation suit against the patent holder and wins.
This is why I think the patent system is nothing more than the skeleton of the crown prince of Mercantilism, sitting upon the throne of the Royal Warrant; a decrepit reminder of a long dead empire.
Game mechanics are not a realistic patent capable measure of protecting ip. As this will not even be challenged in a court irl. Full well knowing that when a big company like nintendo happens to lose, it will open a flood gate of "go fuck yourself" copy cats, out of spite.

NintenBlows are panicking and grasping at straws as a chest pound. Their legal team cannot possibly be so stupid as to believe it would actually hold up under scrutiny, in a court.

edit= typo
Post edited September 11, 2025 by Shmacky-McNuts
I am just glad i did not spend money to them which would be supporting those constant law-enforced nagging and ultimately even delay or slow down others creativity. I am glad a game like Palworld does exist...
People need to remember the purpose of the patent system was not to award monopoly for inventions. That was a side effect. Patents like this are entirely invalid. There's no disclosure of an invention. It's just staking a claim on a thought.

The (limited) monopoly was a reward for disclosure of things that would otherwise have been kept secret. A chemical process, a mechanical diagram, etc.

Nowadays, the majority of patents should just not exist. There was no need for disclosure in the first place, so no patent was necessary. And then all these "idea" patents like this one in this thread.
This patent is limited in what it actually protects. It only applies if a game uses the very specific two-mode system described in the patent: one mode where the summoned character is directly controlled by the player during battle, and another mode where the character fights automatically under certain conditions (like the ‘Let’s Go’ feature in Pokémon Scarlet/Violet). It doesn’t cover all situations where a summoned character fights. If your system works differently, for example if it only has automatic battles or only manual control, then it falls outside the patent.

Also, just because Nintendo was granted this patent doesn’t mean it’s bulletproof. Patents can be challenged in court or reviewed again by the patent office, especially if similar features were already used in earlier games (called prior art). In those cases, the patent could be weakened or even thrown out completely.So, while this patent does give Nintendo some protection, it’s much narrower than it might seem, and there’s still uncertainty about whether it would actualy hold up if tested.
avatar
amok: This patent is limited in what it actually protects. It only applies if a game uses the very specific two-mode system described in the patent: one mode where the summoned character is directly controlled by the player during battle, and another mode where the character fights automatically under certain conditions (like the ‘Let’s Go’ feature in Pokémon Scarlet/Violet). It doesn’t cover all situations where a summoned character fights. If your system works differently, for example if it only has automatic battles or only manual control, then it falls outside the patent.

Also, just because Nintendo was granted this patent doesn’t mean it’s bulletproof. Patents can be challenged in court or reviewed again by the patent office, especially if similar features were already used in earlier games (called prior art). In those cases, the patent could be weakened or even thrown out completely.So, while this patent does give Nintendo some protection, it’s much narrower than it might seem, and there’s still uncertainty about whether it would actualy hold up if tested.
Let's see if I can reach into my bag and pull out some Prior Art.

Dragon Quest Monsters, the Arena in Final Fantasy 6 and I have summons equipped, Megami Tensei...and if I really wanted to stretch the definition and squint, I could get real absurd and suggest Progress Quest.
avatar
mqstout: People need to remember the purpose of the patent system was not to award monopoly for inventions. That was a side effect. Patents like this are entirely invalid. There's no disclosure of an invention. It's just staking a claim on a thought.

The (limited) monopoly was a reward for disclosure of things that would otherwise have been kept secret. A chemical process, a mechanical diagram, etc.

Nowadays, the majority of patents should just not exist. There was no need for disclosure in the first place, so no patent was necessary. And then all these "idea" patents like this one in this thread.
No, the patent system isn’t just about public disclosure. It also exists to give inventors a temporary period of exclusive rights, that’s why patents are time-limited. Research and development is expensive and risky, so the patent system helps innovators recover those costs and encourages investment in new ideas. Without patents, someone could spend years and significant resources creating something new, only for competitors to copy it immediately and sell it without any of the upfront risk and cost. That would make it much harder to justify the time and money needed to innovate in the first place.

If you remove patents, you’d need to replace them with some other system to protect and reward innovation. Otherwise, in a capitalist market, it would be much harder for many types of innovation to make economic sense.