.png?width=500&height=250&name=%E7%9F%A5%E7%9A%84%E8%B2%A1%E7%94%A3%E4%BA%8B%E5%8B%99%E6%89%80%E3%82%A8%E3%83%9C%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9%20(500%20%C3%97%20250%20px).png)
The appeal of *Splatoon* lies, above all, in the exhilarating feeling of competing to cover the...
You might be wondering, “Are there really patents for video games?” In reality, however, major companies like Nintendo, Konami, and Capcom have been locked in patent litigation worth tens of billions of yen over video game technologies. Behind the controls and systems we casually enjoy lies a fierce battle over intellectual property.
In this article, a patent attorney well-versed in the gaming and IT sectors will explain patent cases involving major Japanese game companies, citing actual patent numbers and the outcomes of the litigation. You’ll learn “why games can be patented,” “what technologies were in dispute,” and “what developers should be aware of.”
The facts presented in this article have been verified against multiple sources, including official announcements from the companies, major media reports, and patent publications (such as J-PlatPat and IP Force). Where information is based on reports or involves undisclosed details—such as settlement terms—this is clearly indicated.
Table of Contents
- Games and Patents | The Intellectual Property Battle Behind the Fun
- Why Can “Games” Be Patented?
- Case Study 1 | Nintendo vs. Colopl: “White Cat Project” (Settlement Amount: 3.3 Billion Yen)
- Case Study 2 | Nintendo & Pokémon vs. Pocket Pair: “Palworld” (Currently in Litigation)
- Case Study 3 | Konami vs. Cygames: “Uma Musume”
- Case 4 | Capcom vs. Koei Tecmo (“Musou,” “Zero”)
- Column | The Legendary “Loading Screen Mini-Game” Patent
- Lessons from These Cases | Trends in Game Patents
- Lessons for Game Developers and Startups
- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- Sources
Games and Patents | The Intellectual Property Battle Behind the Fun
Video games are a collection of numerous technologies, including control methods, user interfaces (UI), communication, matchmaking, and monetization (gacha). Since patents can be granted for these technologies, patent disputes often arise between companies over hit titles.
Japan, in particular, is a “powerhouse of game patents,” home to global gaming giants such as Nintendo, Sony, Konami, Bandai Namco, Capcom, Square Enix, and Sega. These companies continuously file numerous patent applications and have consistently enforced their rights, sometimes resorting to costly litigation.
Why Can “Games” Be Patented?
First and foremost, abstract ideas such as a game’s “rules,” “gameplay,” or “worldview” are generally not patentable. This is because patents cover “technical concepts (inventions) that utilize the laws of nature,” and do not include mere rules or ideas.
What can be patented are the “concrete means” used to implement those ideas through technology, such as computers.
| Things That Are Unlikely to Be Patented | Things That Can Be Patented (Technical Means of Implementation) |
|---|---|
| The rule of “raising characters and battling them” | Control logic for throwing a ball in the direction of the crosshairs with a touch |
| The gameplay concept of “drawing powerful characters from a gacha” | A system for controlling gacha drop rates |
| The experience of “getting excited through cooperative play” | A communication system limited to registered users |
| The concept of “immersive visual effects” | A mechanism that uses vibrations to convey off-screen events to players |
💡 Key Point: The essence of a game patent lies not in the “idea of fun” but in “how it was technically implemented.” Understanding this point makes the following case studies much easier to grasp.
Case Study 1 | Nintendo vs. Colopl: “White Cat Project” (Settlement Amount: 3.3 billion yen)
This is the most famous case in Japanese video game patent litigation.
Patent Infringement Lawsuit | Settlement
Nintendo vs. Colopl (Mobile Game “White Cat Project”)
On December 22, 2017, Nintendo filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court alleging that Colopl’s smartphone game “White Cat Project” infringed on its patents. The lawsuit involved six patents, with the initial claim for damages set at approximately 4.4 billion yen, which was later increased to approximately 9.7 billion yen.
On August 4, 2021, a settlement was reached in which Colopl paid Nintendo 3.3 billion yen (including licensing fees), and Nintendo withdrew its lawsuit (other terms of the settlement were not disclosed). This is an exceptionally large sum for a video game patent lawsuit in Japan.
On August 4, 2021, a settlement was reached in which Colopl paid Nintendo 3.3 billion yen (including licensing fees), and Nintendo withdrew its lawsuit (other terms of the settlement were not disclosed). This is an exceptionally large sum for a video game patent lawsuit in Japan.
The Six Patents in Dispute
The following six patents were confirmed in official announcements by both Nintendo and Colopl:
| Patent Number | Corresponding Features Cited in News Reports and Analysis (for reference) |
|---|---|
| Patent No. 3734820 | Character movement via touch controls (the so-called “Puni-Con” = virtual pad) — considered the central issue of the dispute |
| Patent No. 4262217 | Charge attacks via long press |
| Patent No. 4010533 | Confirmation screen upon waking from sleep (power-saving) mode |
| Patent No. 5595991 | Communication Limited to Registered Users (Follow/Co-op Play) |
| Patent No. 3637031 | Display of Silhouettes for Characters Hidden Behind Obstacles |
| Patent No. 6271692 | Touch Control System (No public disclosure of specific functions) |
Note: The correspondence between each patent and the “White Cat” features is based primarily on commentary from media outlets and experts (the numbers of the six patents in question were confirmed through announcements by Nintendo and Colopl. It has been reported that the lawsuit was initially filed regarding five patents, and Patent No. 6271692 was added during the litigation, bringing the total to six).Please refer to the claims in each patent publication for the exact scope of protection.
💡 Key Point: According to analysis by intellectual property experts, the decisive factor was that these patents were “fundamental in hindsight, but possessed novelty at the time of filing and had an extremely broad scope of protection.” This case illustrates the importance of filing early to secure broad rights.
Case Study 2 | Nintendo & Pokémon vs. Pocket Pair’s “Palworld” (Pending Litigation)
Patent Infringement Litigation | Pending
Nintendo + The Pokémon Company vs. Pocket Pair (“Palworld”)
In September 2024, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court against Pocket Pair Co., Ltd., the developer of the blockbuster game “Palworld,” alleging that the game infringes on their patents.The claims seek an injunction against “Palworld” and damages of 5 million yen each (10 million yen total) plus interest for delay. As of the time of this article’s publication
, the case is pending (unresolved).
, the case is pending (unresolved).
The Three Patents at Issue
| Patent Number | Technical Details (Based on Bibliographic Data and Media Reports) |
|---|---|
| Patent No. 7545191 | Technology related to the operation of selecting a capture item (ball) or combat character and launching it in the direction of the crosshairs |
| Patent No. 7493117 | Display of an indicator showing whether capture was successful when aiming at a character on the field |
| Patent No. 7528390 | Control System for Capture, Boarding, and Other Operations (Divisional Application) |
All of these are considered patents that were granted in a relatively short period of time by utilizing divisional applications and expedited examination. Proactively acquiring and enforcing related patents for popular games—this is a case that illustrates the intellectual property strategy of major companies.
Case Study 3 | Konami vs. Cygames: “Uma Musume”
Patent Infringement Litigation | Settlement
Konami vs. Cygames (Horse-Rearing Game “Uma Musume Pretty Derby”)
On March 31, 2023, Konami Digital Entertainment filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court alleging that Cygames’ “Uma Musume Pretty Derby” infringed on its patents (the initial claim amounted to approximately 4 billion yen).The lawsuit reportedly involved 18 patents related to the game system of the horse-raising simulation, with media reports citing, among other things, a mechanism that triggers specific events based on pre-set character combinations (Patent No. 5814300).
A settlement was reached on November 7, 2025 (terms undisclosed). Cygames stated that while it “is convinced there was no patent infringement,” it agreed to the settlement from the perspective of protecting users and achieving an early resolution. Its parent company, CyberAgent, recorded an extraordinary loss of 727 million yen.
A settlement was reached on November 7, 2025 (terms undisclosed). Cygames stated that while it “is convinced there was no patent infringement,” it agreed to the settlement from the perspective of protecting users and achieving an early resolution. Its parent company, CyberAgent, recorded an extraordinary loss of 727 million yen.
Note: The full list of the 18 cases in question has not been made public, and information regarding Patent No. 5814300 is based on media reports (confidence level: medium).
Case 4 | Capcom vs. Koei Tecmo (“Warriors” and “Zero”)
Patent Infringement Lawsuit | Final Judgment
Capcom vs. Koei Tecmo Games (“Warriors” Series, “Zero” Series)
In 2014, Capcom filed a lawsuit in the Osaka District Court alleging that Koei Tecmo Games’ “True Three Kingdoms: Musou” and “Sengoku Musou” series, as well as the horror game series “Zero (FATAL FRAME),” infringed on its patents.
On December 15, 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finalizing the judgment ordering Koei Tecmo to pay approximately 143,843,710 yen. This is a rare case that was contested all the way to a final judgment rather than being settled.
On December 15, 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finalizing the judgment ordering Koei Tecmo to pay approximately 143,843,710 yen. This is a rare case that was contested all the way to a final judgment rather than being settled.
The Two Patents in Dispute
| Patent Number | Technical Details | Target Work |
|---|---|---|
| Patent No. 3350773 | Technology for obtaining additional data (characters, scenes, sound effects) from previous game discs, expansion packs, etc. | "Musou" Series |
| Patent No. 3295771 | Technology that conveys situations that cannot be determined from the screen to the player via controller vibration | "Zero" Series |
Column | The Legendary “Loading Screen Mini-Game” Patent
A patent that has become the stuff of legend in the world of video game patents is the one for the technology that allows players to “play a separate mini-game while the game is loading.”
Beware of a common misconception: While this patent is often mistakenly believed to belong to Nintendo, it is actually a U.S. patent (US 5,718,632) held by “Namco” (now Bandai Namco).Filed around 1995, it created a situation for many years where other companies found it difficult to adopt loading-screen mini-games. This patent expired on November 27, 2015, and since then, companies have been free to adopt the technology.
💡 Key Point: A single patent can influence the adoption of “a certain feature or function” across an entire industry for approximately 20 years—this is a case that symbolizes the significant influence of game patents.
Learning from Case Studies | Trends in Game Patents
These examples reveal certain trends in game patents.
| Elements That Are Easily Patented | Specific Examples (Cases Discussed in This Article) |
|---|---|
| Control Methods and Input UI | Touch-based character control and aiming (White Cat, Palworld) |
| Device and System Controls | Confirmation screen upon waking from sleep mode (White Cat) |
| Communication and Co-op Play | Communication Limited to Registered Users (White Cat) |
| Additional Content and Cross-Platform Features | Additional Data Acquisition from Previous Title (Capcom Musou) |
| Visual Effects & Feedback | Information conveyed via vibration (Capcom Zero) |
| Character Development, In-App Purchases, and Random Draws | Event Triggering via Character Combinations and Gacha-Style Mechanics (Uma Musume) |
The key point here is that in all these cases, it is not the “ideas for fun” themselves but rather the “specific technologies to implement them” that are being patented. Furthermore, when a hit title is released, it often leads to the enforcement of related patents; this suggests that the more popular a title is, the higher the risk of infringing on other companies’ patents.
Lessons for Game Developers and Startups
① Protect unique control schemes and systems with patents. Consider securing rights for differentiating features such as virtual pads, proprietary matching systems, and monetization and lottery mechanisms.
② File patent applications before public release. Once a service is publicly released, it loses its novelty and can no longer be patented. It is crucial to incorporate “filing a patent application” into your development schedule.
③ Verify freedom to operate (FTO) with third-party patents. As seen with *Shironeko*, *Uma Musume*, and *Palworld*, if your game becomes a hit, there is a risk that third parties may enforce their rights against you. Conduct an FTO search before release to assess these risks.
④ Startups, in particular, should act early. Large companies hold numerous patents. Precisely because you are a latecomer or a small-scale player, securing rights to your proprietary technology early and building a defensive posture will give you a competitive edge.
We assess whether your game technology is patentable and whether it infringes on third-party patents.
Patent attorneys with deep expertise in the IT, software, and gaming sectors provide comprehensive support—from free assessments of the patentability of your gameplay mechanics and systems, to planning the optimal filing timing, and conducting FTO (infringement) searches.
Schedule a Free Initial Consultation IT & IP ServicesFrequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q. Can game ideas or rules be patented?
A. Abstract ideas such as a game’s “gameplay, rules, or world setting” are generally not patentable (as they do not constitute a technical concept based on natural laws).What is patentable are the “technical means” used to implement them. For example, specific information processing methods or UI implementations—such as “a process for throwing a ball in the direction of the crosshairs via touch controls,” “a mechanism for displaying a confirmation screen when resuming from power-saving mode,” or “a mechanism for conveying information to the player via vibration”—are eligible for patent protection.
Q. Are there any examples of significant damages awarded in game patent infringement cases?
A. Yes, there are. A prime example is the “White Cat Project” case between Nintendo and Colopl, which was settled in 2021 with Colopl paying Nintendo 3.3 billion yen as part of the settlement (according to an official Nintendo announcement).Additionally, in the Capcom vs. Koei Tecmo case, the Supreme Court finalized a payment of approximately 143.84 million yen in 2020.
Q. Can control methods (such as touch controls) be patented?
A. Yes, they can. Virtual pads in mobile games, as well as character control and aiming via touch, can be patented if described as specific information processing methods. In fact, in the *White Cat Project* and *Palworld* cases, these “control system” patents were key points of contention.
Q. I’m concerned that my company’s game might infringe on another company’s patents.
A. Since games involve many technical elements—such as controls, UI, communication, and in-app purchases—there is a risk of unintentionally infringing on another company’s patents. We recommend working with a patent attorney to verify the potential for infringement (FTO = Freedom to Operate) with relevant third-party patents before release.
Q. Should a game startup apply for patents?
A. Yes. If you have proprietary control systems, matchmaking mechanisms, or monetization systems, they are worth protecting with patents. It is crucial to complete the patent application before publicly launching or releasing the service (once released, the invention loses its novelty and cannot be patented). Early patent protection is a competitive advantage not only for large companies but especially for startups.
Important Note Regarding This Article: This article provides a general explanation based on official announcements from various companies, media reports, and patent gazettes. Due to their nature, information regarding undisclosed matters such as settlement terms, information based on media reports, and the outlook for pending litigation may not be definitive. The scope of patent rights is determined by the individual claims and the history of the application.For specific infringement determinations, FTO analyses, and similar matters, please refer to the latest information and consult with experts for individual assessments.
Sources
The main facts in this article are based on the following official announcements, news reports, and patent information.
- Nintendo vs. Colopl Settlement (Nintendo Official, August 4, 2021): nintendo.co.jp/corporate/release/2021/210804.html / ITmedia: itmedia.co.jp
- Nintendo & Pokémon vs. Pocket Pair (Palworld): Famitsu famitsu.com/article/202411/23686 / Patent No. 7545191 (IP Force) ipforce.jp
- Konami vs. Cygames (Uma Musume): GAME Watch game.watch.impress.co.jp / ITmedia itmedia.co.jp
- Capcom vs. Koei Tecmo: Nikkei nikkei.com / GAME Watch game.watch.impress.co.jp
- Namco “Loading Screen Mini-Game” Patent (US 5,718,632 · Expired): Neowin neowin.net
- Original Patent Documents: J-PlatPat (Patent and Utility Model Number Search) j-platpat.inpit.go.jp
