The legal battle between Pokémon's parent companies and breakout hit Palworld continues to impact the game's development, with Pocketpair now confirming that recent gameplay changes were directly caused by the ongoing patent infringement lawsuit.
Forced Gameplay Changes Confirmed
Pocketpair has officially acknowledged that recent patches to Palworld were made as compromises resulting from the ongoing patent lawsuit filed by Nintendo and The Pokémon Company. In a statement released on May 8, the developer explained that these changes were necessary in order to avoid disruptions to the development and distribution of Palworld. The company expressed disappointment but emphasized that making these adjustments was preferable to what they described as an even greater deterioration of the gameplay experience for players that might have resulted from potential legal injunctions.
Specific Mechanics Altered
The first major change came in Patch v0.3.11 released in November 2024, which removed the ability for players to summon Pals by throwing Pal Spheres. This mechanic, which bore similarities to Pokémon's iconic ball-throwing capture system, was replaced with a static summon that appears next to the player. The more recent Patch v0.5.5, released on May 8, 2025, further altered gameplay by changing how players glide through the game world. Instead of using Pals for gliding, players must now use a dedicated glider item that must be in their inventory. While Pals will still provide passive buffs to gliding, they are no longer the primary means of aerial movement.
Key Gameplay Changes Due to Lawsuit:
- Patch v0.3.11 (November 2024): Removed ability to throw Pal Spheres to summon Pals
- Patch v0.5.5 (May 2025): Replaced Pal-based gliding with mandatory glider item
Legal Claims:
- Nintendo and The Pokémon Company seeking JPY 5 million each (approx. USD $32,846)
- Three Japan-based patents related to catching creatures in virtual fields
- Potential injunction that could block Palworld's development and distribution
Legal Battle Background
The lawsuit centers around three Japan-based patents that Nintendo and The Pokémon Company claim Palworld infringes upon. These patents reportedly involve mechanics for catching creatures in a virtual field, similar to the system seen in games like Pokémon Legends: Arceus. The plaintiffs are seeking JPY 5 million (approximately USD $32,846) each plus late payment damages, as well as an injunction that could potentially block Palworld's development and distribution. Notably, Pocketpair has stated they will continue to dispute these claims and assert the invalidity of the patents in question.
Palworld's Meteoric Rise
Palworld launched in early 2024 on Steam and Xbox Game Pass, quickly breaking sales and concurrent player records. The game's success was so substantial that Pocketpair's CEO Takuro Mizobe admitted the company struggled to manage the massive profits it generated. This breakout success led to business expansion, including a deal with Sony to form Palworld Entertainment, dedicated to growing the IP. The game later launched on PlayStation 5 as well.
Controversy From Launch
Since its release, Palworld has faced accusations of copying Pokémon designs, with some critics claiming Pocketpair ripped off Nintendo's iconic creatures. However, rather than pursuing copyright infringement claims, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company chose to file a patent lawsuit instead. At GDC in March, Pocketpair's communications director John Bucky Buckley stated that the lawsuit came as a shock to the studio and was something that no one even considered.
Future Development Concerns
Despite these forced changes, Pocketpair has assured fans that they remain committed to developing Palworld and delivering exciting new content. However, the ongoing litigation casts a shadow over the game's future development path, potentially limiting certain gameplay mechanics that might otherwise have been implemented or expanded upon. The developer apologized to fans for the discomfort and concern this ongoing litigation has caused while requesting understanding for their limited transparency during the legal proceedings.