Nintendo’s recent legal efforts have ignited significant online discussion, primarily due to its reputation for being highly litigious. The latest news indicates that Nintendo’s patent claims aimed at Palworld were rejected at a notable ratio—22 out of 23—in the U.S.

However, this scenario is not as alarming as it might appear. A Japanese patent attorney, Kiyoshi Kurihara, emphasizes that such mass rejections are commonplace in patent reviews.

Kurihara explains that patent applications usually encompass a blend of broad and specific claims; often, the broader claims are dismissed for lacking novelty or inventiveness. Despite the ‘final rejection’ terminology, it offers Nintendo the possibility to revise its application or contest the rejections through additional filings or appeals.

This feedback aligns with practices widely recognized in patent law, particularly the notion that a product may infringe upon numerous claims from a single patent. As a result, even if certain claims are deemed invalid, others could still persist successfully.

For those interested in a deep dive, a study from 2015 revealed that only 11.4% of patent applications in the U.S. receive allowance without any rejections. Thus, businesses like Nintendo often start with broad claims similar to setting a high initial price during negotiations.

In essence, while the situation surrounding Palworld may seem dire, it follows a familiar trajectory in the patent application landscape.