Put simply, the language in the filing seems to describe the behavior in Scarlet and Violet where a partnered Pokémon will either auto-attack wild creatures while roaming alongside the player, or engage in a full turn-based encounter if the player targets a specific foe. In other words, the patent appears to cover a particular hybrid of automatic field attacks and selectable, player-initiated battles rather than every possible summoning mechanic.
Does that mean developers working on creature-collection games can relax? Not entirely. The practical effect of the patent would depend on how courts interpret its claims, and some observers believe the filing could be overturned if challenged.
Charles Duan, an assistant professor at American University Washington College of Law who has studied patent eligibility and software-related intellectual property, notes that similar mechanics predate the patent’s earliest 2022 filing date. He points to older titles — for example, StarCraft — that offer both automated and directly controlled combat options. If an earlier game already implemented the same features, that prior art could defeat the patent on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
Duan also highlights a separate legal route for invalidation: subject-matter eligibility. Many courts view basic organizational or business practices as abstract ideas that cannot be patented. Duan says the patent’s concept — directing subordinate units to act, fight nearby enemies, or move to a destination and engage along the way — could be analogized to ordinary military or management hierarchies, which strengthens an argument that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In short, while the patent has prompted understandable concern, its actual reach appears limited by the specificity of its claims and by existing legal doctrines that may render it vulnerable to challenge. The ultimate impact on the genre remains uncertain.
Source: gamesradar.com
