What if Nintendo had patented the jump button? Whilst it may sound like a ridiculous, this may fast become reality. In the recent years there have already been some high-profile cases involving video game patents. Just last year Nintendo pursued legal action against Pocketpair, developers of Palworld. Previous to that Ubisoft tried to enforce their Patent against Yousician, which ended in the invalidity of Ubisoft’s own patent.

 

The topic of video game patents again arose in gaming circles with recent patents granted to Nintendo and The Pokémon Company. The patents in question cover mechanics as fundamental as rideable companions and auto-battle systems — ideas that have existed in games for decades. While no precedent has been set yet, recent events suggest a dangerous trend in trying to patent game mechanics.

 

Patentability of Games: Defining What Can Be Patented

 

A core issue with these patents revolves around the fundamental question of what qualifies as an invention. European patent law contains explicit exclusions for "programs for computers" and "methods for playing games." These exclusions prevent such ideas from being classified as inventions, meaning that patenting these concepts is not allowed unless they provide a technical contribution. This may be why Nintendo and The Pokémon Company have not pursued patent applications in Europe.

 

Similarly, in the U.S., patent law provides exceptions for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas,” meaning these cannot be patented. While U.S. law doesn’t explicitly exclude games from patentability, existing case law generally treats game mechanics as abstract ideas, which puts them outside the scope of patent protection.

 

In practice, both U.S. and European courts share a similar barrier when it comes to patenting game mechanics. Looking specifically at the patents in question—one related to Mounts and Rideable Companions, and the other to Summoning and Auto-Battle Mechanics—there is little doubt that these concepts fall under methods of playing games or abstract ideas. In principle, these patents should have been rejected on this basis alone.

 

Gaming Traditions: Lack of Novelty and Inventiveness

 

Another critical aspect of patent validity is novelty and inventiveness. A patent should only be granted for new, inventive ideas. However, the concepts in the Pokémon patents seem to describe mechanics that have existed in video games long before the filing dates of these patents.

 

Mounts and Rideable Companions: A Well-Ridden Concept

 

The idea of rideable mounts is deeply rooted in video game history, especially within Nintendo’s own franchises. In Super Mario World, Mario could ride Yoshi, a dinosaur that became one of the most iconic characters in gaming. Furthermore, in the same game, players could ride Lakitus’ cloud, providing an early example of a flying mount. Later, in Super Mario Bros. 3, Mario used the Tanooki Suit to fly, essentially providing a functional mount for traversal. Not to mention Epona and various other traversal equipment in the Zelda series.

 

These are just a few examples found in Nintendo’s own iconic franchises. Countless other examples of rideable mounts exist across other franchises, suggesting that this concept is neither new nor unique to Pokémon. This raises serious doubts at least about the novelty of the mounts described in their patents.

 

Battle and Auto-Battle Mechanics

 

Another Pokémon patent focuses on battle mechanics, specifically summoning and automated combat systems. However, these concepts are not new, even within Nintendo’s own game library. Again, without departing from Nintendo’s own franchises.

 

The earliest Pokémon games themselves (Red, Blue, Yellow) the old man in viridian city gives a tutorial for catching Pokémon, which may be argued as an example of automatic battle as well as summoning. 

 

Looking outside of Pokémon, Super Mario 64 introduced a mechanic where players could grab a Bob-omb and throw it, triggering an automatic detonation. This too is an early form of summoning and/or automated battle.

 

More advanced systems such as Final Fantasy XII’s “Gambit System” also predate Pokémon’s patent application. FFXII allowed players to pre-program character behaviours in battle, effectively creating a sophisticated and programmable auto-battle feature. Of course, Final Fantasy also famously has summoning mechanics.

 

These examples, while not exhaustive, suggest that the battle and auto-battle mechanics described in the Pokémon patents are based on existing concepts. This again calls into question at least the novelty of these ideas.

 

Legal Actions

 

This isn't the first time The Pokémon Company has pursued patents or legal action. As mentioned before, they took legal action against the Pocketpair, developers of Palworld, in Japan. For those concerned about the enforceability of these patents, one cost-effective legal option in the U.S. is the ex parte reexamination process. This allows third parties to challenge the validity of a granted patent based on prior art, typically at a lower cost than full litigation. 

 

Conclusion: A House Built on Sand

 

At their core, games are a form of art, which has its own specific IP protection, namely copyright, whereas patents are intended to protect technical innovation. Indeed, copyright infringement cases involving video games do not nearly draw same amount of ire from its fans as does patent infringement cases. Allowing patents to cover basic game mechanics would risk stifling creativity and artistic expression in a medium that thrives on iterative design and shared concepts.

 

Given the flaws in these patents, it would be troubling if they were successfully enforced, as this could set a dangerous precedent. It could potentially undermine the entire gaming industry, which has always been built on creative freedom and collaboration.

 

Do we really want a future where inspiration in the next hit game requires navigating a patent minefield?