As Palworld developer Pocketpair's legal battle against Nintendo and The Pokemon Company continues, one Japanese patent attorney has weighed in on the indie studio's decision to change certain parts of its survival game amid the patent infringement lawsuit, explaining that this doesn't equate to some kind of admission of infringement.
Last September, Nintendo and The Pokemon Company filed a lawsuit against Pocketpair, alleging that it had infringed on three of its patents related to different game mechanics, including Pokeball-style catching mechanics and another that appeared to be related to riding characters (think of the Ride Pokemon such as Wyrdeer and Basculegion in Legends: Arceus).
Although Pocketpair continues to fight against this lawsuit, it has changed a couple of things in updates, which it described as "certain compromises in order to avoid disruptions to the development and distribution of Palworld." In late November, it stopped players from being able to summon their Pals by throwing Pal Spheres, alongside other mechanic changes which "were indeed a result of the ongoing litigation." Last month, it removed the ability to use Pals as gliders, "yet another compromise."
As spotted and translated by Automaton, Japanese patent attorney Kiyoshi Kurihara recently took to Yahoo! Japan to address what he described as responses questioning why Pocketpair would implement changes like this if it were denying Nintendo's allegations of patent infringement and arguing that the patents themselves are invalid.
According to Kurihara, Pocketpair's decision to do this wasn't an unusual one by any means, as it's actually "standard procedure in patent infringement lawsuits" alongside denial of any infringement and counterclaiming that the patents are invalid in some way. Furthermore, he adds, "you need to make every argument you can" in a lawsuit.
Just in case there was any doubt, Kurihara also adds that plaintiffs (like Nintendo and The Pokemon Company, in this case), don't generally point to changes in design as admission of a defendant (for example, Pocketpair) acknowledging a patent's validity.
So, no, according to the patent attorney, making these tweaks doesn't mean that Pocketpair is giving up its fight by any means. When explaining its most recent "compromises," the studio stated: "We continue to dispute these claims and assert the invalidity of the patents in question."
