Squires wrote that the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance (mailed July 8, 2025) relied on a finding that the prior art of record did not disclose “a player can be allowed to perform two types of battles, that is, a battle by the first mode in which the player performs an operation input and a battle by the simpler second mode.”
He continued that both Yabe (Konami) and Taura (the earlier Nintendo filing) teach a system where a player may choose between a manual battle mode and a simpler automatic mode. Because those references were not part of the original file, Squires concluded a reasonable examiner would treat them as important and that each raises a substantial new question of patentability.
What happens now? Squires’ order identifies independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 26 as raising substantial questions. IP observers like Mueller predict that if those core claims are overturned, the remainder of the patent could collapse as well — an outcome he likens to a “house of cards.”
The director’s order does not immediately invalidate the patent; it initiates a reexamination that could, depending on the findings, lead to revocation. Mueller argues this development weakens Nintendo’s broader patent posture in its litigation with Pocketpair, noting that this is the second recent instance where a major patent office has viewed one of the asserted patents or applications skeptically.
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company’s legal action against Pocketpair remains active. Regarding the reexamination of US Patent No. 12,403,397, Nintendo has two months from the order to file a response.
Source: gamesradar.com
