Skip to content
English
お問い合わせ

Understanding Splatoon’s Core Patent “Patent No. 5980266” Through Its Claims [Explanation by a Patent Attorney]

Picture of 弁理士 杉浦健文

"Turf War"—the core gameplay of *Splatoon*—involves players competing to cover the ground with ink, with victory determined by the area covered. Nintendo Co., Ltd.’s Patent No. 5980266 captures the essence of this experience.In our previous overview article, we took a broad look at several Splatoon patents, but this article focuses specifically on this single core patent. We will break down and analyze its claim elements one by one, citing the original text of Claim 1.

“How is the fun of a game translated into patent claims?”—This article answers that question using specific legal language. Not only will practitioners involved in drafting claims for software and game-related inventions gain insight, but business professionals interested in intellectual property will also be able to experience firsthand how actual intellectual property rights are structured.

1. What Is Patent No. 5980266?—Verifying Bibliographic Information

First, let’s verify the basic information of the subject patent using primary sources (the original text on Google Patents).

Title of the InventionInformation Processing System, Information Processing Program, Information Processing Apparatus, and Information Processing Method
Patentee (Applicant)Nintendo Co., Ltd.
Filing Date / Priority DateMay 14, 2014
Publication NumberJP2015-216971A (JP2015216971A)
Registration DateAugust 31, 2016
Registration NumberPatent No. 5980266 (JP5980266B2)

The filing date was May 14, 2014. Since the first "Splatoon" game was released in May 2015, it can be inferred that the application for the core invention was filed approximately one year before the product’s announcement and release. This serves as an example of how carefully timing the filing can help avoid loss of novelty due to the company’s own public disclosures.

2. Original Text of Claim 1 (Excerpt)

Now, let’s quote Claim 1—which defines the scope of protection—verbatim. Although it is a long sentence separated by commas, as will be discussed later, it has a structure in which multiple elements are nested within one another.

Patent No. 5980266, Claims, Claim 1 (Original Text)

“Comprising: operation input receiving means for receiving user operation inputs; and information processing means for performing information processing based on the operation inputs received by said operation input receiving means; wherein said information processing means controls a player character within a virtual space based on said operation inputs,game progression means for rendering the corresponding color of the player’s character in the virtual space; and battle determination means for determining the outcome of a battle based on the rendering status of the corresponding color of an enemy character—which differs from the corresponding color of the player’s character—in the virtual space and the rendering status of the corresponding color of the player’s character in the virtual space;an information processing system characterized in that the game progression means performs display control and/or first movement control of the player character differently when the player character is located within an area rendered in the player character’s corresponding color than when the player character is located within an area not rendered in the player character’s corresponding color."

Note that in addition to Claim 1 for an “information processing system,” this patent includes independent claims 25 (information processing program), 26 (information processing apparatus), and 27 (information processing method).This structure covers the same technical concept across multiple categories: devices, programs, apparatus, and methods (the significance of this will be discussed in Chapter 6).

3. Breaking Down the Claim Elements—Decomposing into Five Elements

In the practice of interpreting and comparing claims, long sentences are segmented (broken down) into “elements of the claim.” Claim 1 can generally be broken down into the following elements A through E.

Claim Elements Corresponding Portion of Claim 1 (Abstract)
A (Input)Comprising an operation input receiving means for receiving user operation inputs.
B (Processing)Comprises information processing means for performing information processing based on the received user input.
C (Rendering)The information processing means includes game progression means that control the player’s character within a virtual space based on the user input and render the player’s character in its corresponding color within the virtual space.
D (Determination)It comprises a battle determination means that determines the outcome of a battle based on the rendering status of the enemy character’s corresponding color—which differs from the player character’s corresponding color—and the rendering status of the player character’s corresponding color.
E (Behavior Differences)The game progression means varies the display control and/or first movement control depending on whether the player character is within an area rendered in the player’s color or not.

The conclusion ends with “an information processing system characterized by ….” In other words, the scope of protection includes systems that possess all of A through E; if even one of these is missing, the claim is (in principle) not satisfied based on the wording.

Practical Tips (Granularity of Claims): In addition to dividing claims into functional blocks such as A–E, they may be subdivided further depending on the purpose of the comparison.The main battlegrounds for infringement and invalidity claims tend to be the claim elements where the uniqueness of the invention is concentrated—in this case, “determining the outcome of a match based on the drawing state (D)” and “changing behavior depending on whether the area is of the player’s own color (E).”Identifying the core of the invention is the starting point for the comparison process.

4. Which aspects of the game experience do the individual elements correspond to?

By linking the abstract provisions of the law to the actual gameplay experience, the intent of the invention becomes clear.

C (Rendering) = “Applying ink”: Through the player’s controls, the player’s character moves and spreads their team’s color (corresponding color) across the ground—i.e., the virtual space. The patent claims describe this “application” as “rendering the corresponding color in the virtual space.”

D (Determination) = “Outcome of the Turf Battle”: The winner is determined by comparing how much of the player’s color and the opponent’s color are rendered in the virtual space (rendering state). The core of the Turf Battle—where victory is decided by comparing the area covered—is defined as “determining the outcome of a match based on the rendering state.”

E (Behavioral Differences) = “High-Speed Movement and Hiding on Your Own Ink”: The character’s appearance and movement controls change depending on whether the player is in an area covered by their own ink or not.The “feel” of being able to swim and dive quickly as a squid while on one’s own ink is technically defined as “switching display and movement controls based on whether the area is within one’s own color territory or not.”

What is noteworthy is that a single claim incorporates not only “competing to cover area by inking (C+D)” but also the interaction where “inked areas serve as the foundation for movement and action (E).” Inking is both a condition for victory and a resource for movement—this duality of gameplay is directly reflected in the structure of the claim.

5. Why This Wording?—Inventive Step and Abstraction

When reading Claim 1, you’ll notice that not a single proper noun from Splatoon—such as “ink,” “squid,” “weapon,” or “turf”—appears. This is no coincidence; it is a standard practice in drafting game patent claims. There are two main reasons for this.

(1) To satisfy the requirement of inventive step

Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Act defines an invention as “a highly advanced creation of a technical concept utilizing the laws of nature.” The game’s rules—specifically, “competing for territory by splattering ink”—are artificial conventions and do not, on their own, constitute an invention.Therefore, rather than describing the rules as they are, the patent describes them as specific information processing tasks—such as “input reception means,” “information processing means,” “rendering,” and “match determination”—that the software performs in collaboration with hardware resources.By doing so, the specification is structured to satisfy the requirement set forth in the examination guidelines (Appendix B, “Computer Software-Related Inventions”) that “information processing by software is concretely implemented using hardware resources.”

(2) To broaden the scope of protection and make it harder to circumvent

By describing “ink” as “corresponding colors,” “applying” as “drawing,” and “win or loss” as “match determination”—using higher-level abstract concepts—the claims are more likely to cover follower products that may look different.If the claim were limited to “ink,” it could easily be circumvented by modifications such as “painting with ‘light’ rather than paint”; however, by using “drawing with corresponding colors,” the claim becomes less susceptible to variations in expression.That said, using higher-level concepts involves a trade-off with the distance from prior art (novelty and inventive step); the broader the claims are written, the higher the risk of grounds for invalidation. Striking this balance is where drafting skills truly shine.

Practical Tip (Implications for Searches): The absence of proper nouns in the claims means that keywords such as “Splatoon” or “ink” will not lead to the patent number.In FTO and prior art searches, it is necessary to combine the applicant’s name (Nintendo Co., Ltd.), abstract concept keywords (rendering/corresponding colors/match determination/control inputs/virtual space), and IPC/FI classifications (A63F13 series = video games).

6. 4 Categories, Division Strategy, and International Patent Families

In addition to the “information processing system” (Claim 1), this patent includes a program (Claim 25), an apparatus (Claim 26), and a method (Claim 27) as independent claims.This is a comprehensive strategy designed to ensure that parties with different implementation forms or business roles—such as those who distribute programs, those who sell devices, and service operators who implement the method—can be covered by any of the categories.The fact that the title of the invention itself lists four categories—“Information Processing System, Information Processing Program, Information Processing Apparatus, and Information Processing Method”—also reflects this design.

Furthermore, there are several related patents (Patents Nos. 6283072, 6543361, 6561155, etc.) that share the same title of invention as this parent application.Based on publicly available information, these appear to be divisional applications stemming from a common parent application, with limitations such as treating movement and drawing as separate inputs (Patent No. 6283072),a limitation focused on behavior control within one’s own color area (No. 6543361), and synchronization of coloring during online multiplayer matches (No. 6561155), among others, forming a layered patent portfolio from various perspectives.A corresponding patent for the same invention family also exists in the United States (US9943758B2, priority date May 14, 2014), indicating a strategy to secure global protection for the core mechanics.

Note (Confirmation of Division Series): The parent-child and division relationships, as well as which claims are the broadest, can only be confirmed by reviewing the file history (application history) and the descriptions in each published application. The statement in this article that a patent is “believed to be a division” is based on an interpretation of publicly available information; confirmation using primary sources is necessary to precisely identify the lineage.

7. Lessons for Practitioners—From Division Analysis to Design-Around Strategies

Based on this case, we will organize key insights applicable to the practice of software and game-related inventions.

Interpreting the Qualifiers “and/or” and “first”

The phrasing “display control and/or first movement control” in claim element E is an alternative description that can be satisfied by “display control alone,” “movement control alone,” or “both.” By not limiting the scope to either option, the intent is to broadly encompass various implementation variations.Furthermore, the deliberate use of the number “first” in “first movement control” appears to be a strategic move to lay the groundwork for hierarchically expanding the scope of protection by including “second movement control” and similar elements in the specification and dependent claims. Even seemingly casual word choices and ordinal numbers within a claim can reveal the designer’s intent.

Approach to Design-Around (General Principles)

In principle, avoiding literal infringement involves ensuring that at least one of the claim elements is not satisfied. For example, design changes such as “determining the winner based on an indicator ‘other than’ the drawing state (omitting D)” or “not changing behavior based on whether an area is of one’s own color or not (omitting E)” are theoretically viable options. However, in practice, attention must be paid to the following two points:

・Doctrine of Equivalents: Even if a claim element is formally omitted, if the modification shares essential features and is merely a substitution that is both interchangeable and easily made, infringement by equivalence may still be an issue. If the “alternative metric” is substantively equivalent to the drawing state, the modification may not constitute a valid avoidance.

・Scope of the Entire Family: Even if this single case can be avoided, there may still be conflicts with claims in divisional series or different categories (programs, devices, methods), as well as related patents (6283072, 6543361, 6561155, etc.).It is necessary to map the entire series—rather than a single reference—to evaluate the degree of freedom.

Implications for Discovering In-House Inventions

The invention was granted a patent precisely because the ingenious gameplay element—where “the area you paint also becomes a movable resource”—was not treated merely as a visual effect, but was reinterpreted as conditional branching in information processing: “switching control based on whether an area is within your own color zone or not.”We believe that ingenious features supporting the “fun” and “usability” of your company’s services can also be considered for patent protection as software-related inventions if they can be articulated as a technical process involving input → information processing → display and determination. It is not uncommon for inventions to be buried within behaviors that have become “second nature” in the development environment.

8. Summary + Consultation

Claim 1 of Patent No. 5980266 describes a series of information processing steps: “Operation input(A) → Information Processing (B) → Rendering of Corresponding Colors (C) → Match Determination Based on Rendering Status (D) → Behavior Control Based on Whether It Is Within the User’s Color Area (E),” and thus articulates the “splatting” experience in Splatoon precisely and comprehensively.Describing the concept using high-level terms that exclude proper nouns, securing rights across four categories, and expanding coverage through divisional applications and international patent families—the key practical points for protecting game mechanics are condensed into this single case.

Consult with Evorix Intellectual Property Law Firm

At Evorix Intellectual Property Law Firm (evorix.jp), we offer consultations on software and game-related inventions, including patent applications, claim drafting, and FTO (freedom-to-operate) searches. If you’re wondering how to frame the “fun” and “usability” of your company’s services as technical inventions and explore patent protection, please feel free to contact us via the inquiry form.

*This article is intended to provide general information and does not guarantee conclusions regarding specific cases or the validity of patents or the existence of infringement. The cited claims and bibliographic information are based on publicly available information (patent gazettes and Google Patents) as of the time of writing.Please base your interpretation of the actual scope of protection on the entire specification and the application history.

Splatoon Patent Series (5-part series)