Earlier this month Nintendo was granted a new patent (US 12,403,397) by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The patent covered summoning and battling mechanics in video games; systems that allow players to call companions who can fight enemies under direct control or via automated combat.

It’s how Pokémon works but so does many other games.

It sounds familiar because it is. Similar mechanics have appeared in games ranging from Digimon World to Final Fantasy XI, World of Warcraft, and countless other RPGs. Yet the USPTO approved Nintendo’s claims with minimal resistance.

To understand what this means for developers, we spoke with David L. Rothstein, Esq., a patent attorney who specializes in intellectual property litigation.

Nintendo’s latest patent is, in my view, a textbook bully patent. The claims attempt to monopolize a summoning-and-battling mechanic that’s been around since Digimon and Final Fantasy.

According to the patent acquired by Nintendo from USPTO, the system lets a player summon a “sub-character” into a virtual battle arena. And if an enemy is present then the game mechanic will trigger a first battle mode where the players issue direct commands to the summoned companion.

If not, the sub-character automatically follows the player or start fighting the enemy using a second, automated battle system.

Nintendo’s filings frame this as a novel “information processing system” but to many, it looks like an attempt to lock down mechanics that are part of the DNA of role-playing games.

Rothstein agrees.

“Under 35 U.S.C. §102 (novelty) and §103 (obviousness), this should never have made it through examination — it’s broad, obvious, and unworthy of protection,” he explained.

The patent is controversial to say the least, but it is not just about Nintendo and what it is doing. The USPTO’s decision to allow the patent to go through despite decades of prior examples has drawn criticism from legal experts.

Rothstein called the approval “a systemic failure.”

“Patent examiners are supposed to safeguard innovation, not hand billion-dollar companies the legal equivalent of a cudgel to swing at smaller competitors,” he said.

He isn’t alone.

In an interview with PC Gamer, videogame patent lawyer Kirk Sigmon described the same patent as “an embarrassing failure of the US patent system.” Sigmon noted that examiners approved the application with “alarmingly little resistance,” paraphrasing Nintendo’s claims rather than seriously weighing them against prior art.

Nintendo is unlikely to test this patent against giants like Bandai Namco or Square Enix, both of which could mount costly legal challenges. Instead, it is the little guy who will most likely get crushed.

The company may wield it against smaller developers who can’t afford to fight back.

Nintendo knows this patent would struggle to survive a serious validity challenge from a heavyweight, Rothstein noted. But that’s not the point. The mere threat of litigation is often enough to crush smaller studios who can’t afford a multi-million-dollar defense.

The risk is relevant in the wake of Nintendo’s ongoing legal battle with Palworld developer Pocketpair in Japan. The developer is already forced to make design changes to avoid infringing on Nintendo “owned” mechanics.

This isn’t about protecting creative breakthroughs; it’s about intimidation through paperwork, and the USPTO let it happen, says Rothstein.

If left unchallenged these patents can hurt smaller studios who’ll avoid creating similar gameplay mechanics out of fear of costly litigation. Meanwhile, big publishers may start filing similar patents of their own, escalating what amounts to an IP arms race.

For indie developers, the message is sobering: experiment boldly, but tread carefully. When the world’s biggest gaming company can patent something as old as summoning monsters to fight, innovation may be less about what you can dream up and more about what you can afford to defend.