The rejected patent is both a child, and parent of patents cited in the lawsuit.

Read that last quoted sentence again.

So, sure, it doesn’t directly effect JP7493117 in the case, as it came afterward… but it does make Nintendo’s use of JP7545191 in the lawsuit look less credible.

That and the… entire fact that Nintendo is very obviously spamming the patent system.

Image

I’m getting this out of a translator:

Generation 1 Application 2021-208275 Publication 2023-092953 Registration 7398425

Used against Palworld

Application 2023-204842 Publication 2024-020611 Registration 7505852

Generation 2 Application 2024-016448 Publication 2024-042091 Registration 7505854

Application 2024-026645 Publication 2024-054400 Registration 7493117

Newly rejected patent

Patent Application 2024-031879 Publication 2024-059945

Generation 3

Used against Palworld

Application 2024-123560 Publication 2024-149570 Registration 7545191

The lawsuit against Palworld began on September 18 2024.

Here’s that last actual patent, a child of the one just rejected.

…inpit.go.jp/…/JPA 2024149570-000000.pdf

Now, I am not a lawyer, don’t speak barely any Japanese, and am certainly not a Japanese lawyer… but…

This is from the translated summary from the webportal, I am unable to directly link to that page as it is using java or wasm or something:

(19) Issuing country: Japan Patent Office (JP) (12) 【Publication Type】Public Patent Gazette (A) (11) [Release number] Special opening 2024-149570 (P2024-149570A) (43) 【Release Date】October 18, Reiwa 6 (2024.10.18) (54) Name of the invention: game program, game system, game device, and game processing method

(Reiwa roughly means Imperial Era, its kind of a cultural artefact / quirk of their calendar system. Reiwa 6 began in 2019.)

This patent (JP7545191) was published… after… Nintendo’s lawsuit began.

Meaning that Palworld is being sued, at least in part, for violating a patent that did not exist prior to the start of the lawsuit, a patent which builds off of the failed patent that this article is saying was just struck down and would need to be appealed.

So… again not a lawyer, but that seems like insane bullshit that would piss off a judge, to me.