It’s happening. The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office just took an extraordinarily rare action that has left Nintendo’s legal campaign against Palworld in serious jeopardy. On November 3, 2025, USPTO Director Kathi Squires issued a Director Initiated Order for Ex Parte Reexamination of one of Nintendo’s most controversial patents – the one covering the basic “summon a character and let it fight” mechanic that is literally the core of Pokémon. To understand how significant this is: the last time a USPTO Director took this action was in 2012. That’s 13 years. This isn’t just a legal development. It’s an earthquake.
What Is This Patent and Why Does It Matter?
The patent in question is US Patent 10,537,397 (often referred to as “the ‘397 patent”). It covers the basic game mechanics of catching and battling creatures – essentially the foundational mechanic of Pokémon. Nintendo has been wielding this patent as a primary weapon in its lawsuit against Pocketpair, the developer of Palworld, claiming that Palworld’s creature-catching and battling system infringes on this patent.
The problem is that this patent has been controversial since the moment it was granted. Intellectual property experts and legal commentators immediately flagged it as overly broad and lacking genuine innovation. It’s basically patenting the concept of “catch a creature and make it fight,” which describes not just Pokémon but dozens of other games dating back years, including ARK (2015), Monster Hunter (2013), and even games like Kantai Collection (2013).
Why a Director Initiated Order Is So Rare
Under normal circumstances, patent reexaminations only happen when a company threatened by a patent files a petition requesting it. That’s what happened when Pocketpair’s lawyers challenged this patent – they submitted evidence of prior art and argued the patent shouldn’t have been granted. But here’s what makes this absolutely extraordinary: the USPTO Director didn’t wait for that process to play out. He personally intervened.
Director Initiated Orders for Ex Parte Reexamination haven’t been issued since 2012 – literally over a decade. The fact that Squires took this action suggests something quite significant happened behind the scenes. According to legal observers, the only plausible explanation is that the USPTO’s leadership became aware of the “negative publicity” surrounding the grant of this patent and wanted to correct what they saw as a mistake.
The Irony of the Director’s Position
What makes this action even more remarkable is that Director Squires was appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate specifically because he wanted to strengthen patents – to make them “born strong” so they don’t get invalidated on technicalities. He’s philosophically opposed to invalidating patents. And yet, here he is, personally intervening to reexamine a patent he apparently believes is so bad that it shouldn’t have been granted in the first place. That says everything about how egregiously flawed this patent is perceived to be.
In his confirmation hearing, Squires stated he wanted to weed out “objectively bad patents” that lack genuine strength. This action suggests he considers Nintendo’s ‘397 patent to be exactly that: objectively bad.
What Happens Now
The reexamination will focus on claims 1, 13, 25, and 26 – the independent claims. If these fall (which legal experts believe is likely), the dependent claims fall as well. One IP lawyer quoted by gamesfray described it as “a house of cards.” If the core independent claims are invalidated, the entire patent structure collapses.
Here’s the practical consequence: if Nintendo sued Pocketpair in a US District Court right now over this patent, the court would almost certainly stay the proceedings pending the outcome of this reexamination. You don’t pursue litigation over a patent that’s actively being questioned by the patent office itself. The case would be paused until the reexamination concludes, which could take years.
| Development | Date | Impact on Nintendo’s Case |
|---|---|---|
| Nintendo sues Pocketpair | September 2024 | Case files with three core patents |
| Japan Patent Office rejects monster capture patent | October 2025 | First sign the patents may be invalid |
| US Patent Office rejects second patent | November 2, 2025 | Pattern emerges of invalid patents |
| USPTO Director orders reexamination | November 3, 2025 | MASSIVE blow – core patent questioned |
| Next steps uncertain | November 2025+ | Case now in limbo pending reexamination |
The Pattern: Nintendo’s Patents Are Falling Apart
This isn’t an isolated incident. In October 2025, the Japan Patent Office rejected one of Nintendo’s monster capture patents, citing older games like ARK and Monster Hunter as prior art that demonstrates the mechanic wasn’t original. The JPO specifically noted that Pokémon GO itself (released in 2016) was prior art that undermined Nintendo’s claims of innovation.
Now the US Patent Office is questioning another core patent. Nintendo’s entire legal strategy against Palworld – which relied on these patents being valid – is crumbling. IP lawyers are describing the situation as one where each rejection and reexamination makes the other patents look weaker by association. If one patent in a family is invalid, why should the others be trusted?
Why This Matters Beyond Palworld
This reexamination order has implications far beyond the Palworld case. If the USPTO invalidates Nintendo’s ‘397 patent, it sends a signal to the entire gaming industry about what kinds of patents are acceptable. It’s saying that you can’t just patent basic game mechanics that have existed for decades. You have to demonstrate genuine innovation.
For developers like Pocketpair who have been fighting Nintendo’s legal aggression, this is vindication. For indie developers worried about similar patent assertions from major publishers, this is hopeful precedent. For the broader gaming industry, it’s a reminder that overly broad patents can get struck down, even after they’ve been granted.
FAQs
What is US Patent 10,537,397?
It’s the patent Nintendo has been asserting against Palworld, covering the basic “summon a creature and let it fight” mechanic. It’s essentially a patent on a core Pokémon mechanic.
Why is a Director Initiated Order so rare?
The last Director Initiated Order for Ex Parte Reexamination was issued in 2012 – over 13 years ago. It’s an extremely rare action that suggests the patent office views the patent as fundamentally flawed.
Does this mean the patent is invalid?
No, but it means it’s being reexamined. The reexamination process could take years. However, IP lawyers believe the patent will likely be invalidated based on prior art.
What happens to Nintendo’s lawsuit against Palworld?
Any US District Court case would almost certainly be stayed (paused) pending the outcome of this reexamination. Nintendo can’t pursue litigation over a patent that’s actively under question.
Will Nintendo’s Japan lawsuit be affected?
Indirectly. If the USPTO invalidates this patent, it undermines the credibility of Nintendo’s patent family. The Japan courts would likely take note.
Why did Director Squires take this action?
The most likely explanation is that he reviewed the patent, saw the public outrage over its breadth, and determined it was an “objectively bad patent” that shouldn’t have been granted. He’s on record wanting to “weed out” such patents.
Could this affect other Nintendo patents?
Potentially. If this patent is invalidated, related patents in the same family could come under scrutiny. The entire patent family could be at risk.
What’s the timeline for reexamination?
Reexaminations typically take years. This could drag well into 2026 or beyond.
Conclusion
Nintendo’s legal campaign against Palworld just suffered a potentially fatal blow. The US Patent and Trademark Office Director’s decision to personally order reexamination of Nintendo’s core patent – a move so rare it hasn’t happened in 13 years – represents extraordinary skepticism about the patent’s validity. Combined with the Japan Patent Office’s rejection of a related patent just weeks earlier, the entire foundation of Nintendo’s legal case is crumbling.
For Pocketpair, this is a victory. For the gaming industry, this is a reminder that you can’t patent basic game mechanics no matter how famous the franchise. For Nintendo, this is a catastrophic setback that suggests even the US patent office itself now doubts the legitimacy of its claims. The Palworld lawsuit was always going to be difficult. Now it looks nearly impossible. When the patent office itself questions whether your patent should exist, you’ve got a real problem.