Legal Assessment of the Once Human Crossover Risk in the Context of Nintendo’s Patents

I. Executive Summary: Legal Assessment of the Crossover Risk

The announcement that Once Human (Starry Studio, NetEase) will adopt gameplay mechanics from Palworld—a software already subject to legal disputes with Nintendo—represents a direct mechanistic convergence with the patents claimed by Nintendo. This is particularly true for US Patent 12,403,397, which covers character summoning and battling mechanics. NetEase’s strategic decision to launch this crossover amidst the ongoing controversy signals a deliberate readiness to challenge the validity of these patents.

The analysis leads to the following main conclusions:

• Risk Classification of the Legal Threat: The risk of a formal legal threat or a cease and desist order from Nintendo against NetEase is classified as moderate to high. Nintendo primarily uses these patents as leverage to intimidate competitors and provoke expensive litigation. [1]
• Risk Classification of a Successful Lawsuit: The probability of a successful infringement verdict against Once Human is assessed as low. Leading IP experts view the contested patents as having been granted through procedural flaws at the USPTO and potentially challengeable due to extensive Prior Art (e.g., established strategy games like StarCraft). [1, 2]
• Status Quo of Nintendo’s Reaction: There is no evidence of an official reaction, statement, or lawsuit from Nintendo or The Pokémon Company (TPC) specifically against NetEase or Once Human regarding this update. [3, 4, 5]

II. Mechanistic Convergence: The Once Human “Deviation” Scenario

The planned gameplay mechanics to be introduced in the Once Human update explicitly move into the legal area that Nintendo is attempting to monopolize through its recent patent grants.

2.1 Details of the Deviation: Survive, Capture, Preserve Scenario

The update launching on October 30 introduces the new scenario “Deviation: Survive, Capture, Preserve” as a free expansion. [6, 7] This scenario integrates elements directly reminiscent of the Palworld and Pokémon gameplay principles:

• Core Mechanics: The central gameplay revolves around capturing creatures called “Deviations.” As part of the crossover, specific Palworld Pals such as Cattiva and Chillet are imported into the world of Once Human. These creatures subsequently serve as the player’s post-apocalyptic allies, which can be used in battle against other creatures. [6, 7, 8]
• Deviation Fusion System: Once Human expands the concept of creature management by introducing a Fusion System. This system allows players to fuse Deviations with each other or even with in-game objects (e.g., animals or furniture) to create unique entities with new properties. [9] The addition of these fusions can be interpreted as a strategic attempt to conceptually distance the game from Pokémon‘s evolution and breeding mechanics, while simultaneously affirming the core theme of collecting and enhancing creatures.
• Transformation System: The update further includes an “innovative transformation system,” which allows the player to transform into Pals using special items, opening up a new perspective on open-world exploration. [7]

2.2 Strategic Implication of the Palworld Crossover

The decision by Chinese publisher NetEase (Starry Studio) to implement this crossover while Pocketpair (Palworld) is facing patent infringement proceedings from Nintendo [10] is a conscious calculation in global competition.

NetEase, as one of the largest global publishers [5], uses the high public controversy surrounding the Nintendo patents to achieve a massive increase in visibility for Once Human. Beyond mere marketing effect, the company signals its readiness to oppose Nintendo’s aggressive patent strategy. By directly integrating the challenged mechanics (here: the Palworld Pals and the collecting/battling system) into its own financially strong product, NetEase raises the stakes. This indicates that the patent claims are considered unwarranted and that the company is prepared to actively engage in combating the so-called “Shadow Effect” of these patents on the entire game development industry. [1]

The following table compares the core mechanistic elements of the systems discussed:

Mechanistic Comparison Analysis of Creature Capturing Systems

Game/Mechanism	Capture/Summoning	Battle Control/Interaction	Further Development/Fusion	Relevant Nintendo Patent Focus
Pokémon (IP Baseline)	Pokeball / Automated Summoning	Turn-based / Tactical Commands	Breeding/Evolution	US 12,403,397 (Automation of battle)
Palworld	Pal Spheres / Direct Summoning	Real-time combat / Player support	Breeding	US 12,403,397 & 12,409,387 (Riding/Flying)
Once Human (Deviation Scenario)	Capturing “Deviations” / Allies	Real-time Shooter Integration	Deviation Fusion System (NEW)	US 12,403,397 (Potentially circumvented by real-time action)

III. Nintendo’s Patent Strategy: The Legal Framework of the Conflict

Since a copyright infringement lawsuit based on Palworld‘s creature designs is considered difficult to enforce [10], Nintendo focuses its legal efforts on patenting gameplay mechanics. The strength of the case against Once Human depends on the validity and scope of the patents recently acquired by Nintendo.

3.1 The Role of the Controversial Nintendo Patents

Nintendo holds two critical US patents that form an aggressive line of defense against competitors like Palworld and potentially Once Human:

1. US Patent 12,403,397: This patent claims a system for summoning and battling companion characters. [1]
2. US Patent 12,409,387: This patent addresses mechanics for riding and flying creatures in the open game world. [1]

According to legal experts, both patents were granted due to procedural irregularities in the decision-making process of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). [1]

3.2 The Legal Vulnerability of US Patent 12,403,397

The granting of these patents has led to sharp criticism among video game IP lawyers, which strongly questions their stability in the event of a court challenge. Video game patent lawyer Kirk Sigmon described the allowance as an “embarrassing failure of the US patent system” and stressed that the granting of the ‘397 patent “should not have happened, full stop.” [1]

The criticism is mainly based on two points:

• Lack of Prior Art Review: The USPTO granted Patent 12,403,397 with minimal resistance and only reviewed a “relatively miniskule” number of earlier documents. [1] This suggests that the patent examiner failed to adequately consider established Prior Art in the video game space. [2]
• Challengeability: Experts already see widespread possibilities for declaring the patent invalid (Invalidation) by referencing decades-old gameplay mechanics in titles such as StarCraft or other games with summoning and battle logic. [2] Even the former chief legal officer of The Pokémon Company expressed skepticism about the enforceability of the patent. [2]

The legal weakness of these patents implies that their actual value does not lie in an unchallengeable monopolization of game concepts. Rather, they serve as legal “Tools to bully its competitors.” [1] The mere threat of litigation forces developers to spend millions of dollars on defense, thereby suppressing competition through financial extortion, even if the lawsuit itself lacks substance.

Analysis of the Controversial Nintendo Patents and Expert Assessment

Patent Number	Core Claim	Central Expert Criticism	Legal Assessment of Validity	Strategic Implication
US 12,403,397	Summoning and Automated Battling Characters	“Embarrassing failure” of the USPTO; lack of prior art review [1]	Potentially narrowly defined; challengeable through Prior Art (StarCraft) [2]	Serves as a “tool of intimidation” to raise litigation costs and suppress competition.
US 12,409,387	Riding and Flying Systems	Procedural irregularities; lack of review of established mechanisms [1]	Creates high legal uncertainty as the claim of novelty is questionable. [1]	Lower direct infringement risk by Once Human, but general threat to open-world titles.

IV. Risk Analysis: Infringement Risk for Once Human (Claim Mapping)

To establish patent infringement, Once Human would have to literally fulfill all specific elements (Claims) of Patent 12,403,397.

4.1 Claim Mapping and the Real-Time Nature of Once Human

The critical Patent 12,403,397 is reportedly constructed to outline a “very specific sequence of events and inputs.” [1] This often refers to turn-based or semi-automatic battle management systems typical of Pokémon. NetEase’s lawyers can pursue a targeted strategy to avoid literal infringement, as the scope of the patent is considered narrow. [11]

• Potential Circumvention (Design-Around): Once Human is primarily an open-world survival shooter in real-time. The Deviations operate in a dynamic firefight environment where the player fights with firearms themselves. If the creatures’ mechanics are primarily focused on passive support or real-time AI-driven actions that are directly influenced by the active player combat, this differs significantly from the logic of traditional turn-based RPGs.
• Legal Egress: Experts have suggested that a simple design change, such as adding the option for players to assume direct control over the battles of the summoned creatures, might be sufficient to exempt a nearly identical gameplay mechanic from infringement, as the patent claim is narrowly defined. [11] It is assumed that NetEase, with its extensive development resources, is capable of implementing such strategic design adjustments preventively.

4.2 The Role of NetEase as a Target

The choice of target is a crucial factor in patent litigation strategy. Nintendo is currently focused on Pocketpair, a comparatively smaller Japanese studio. [10]

NetEase is a financially strong global player. [5] A patent lawsuit against NetEase would significantly tie up Nintendo’s financial and legal resources. Consequently, NetEase is capable of sustaining the lawsuit for years and investing millions in defense. Furthermore, a new, parallel patent lawsuit against a major publisher like NetEase could unnecessarily complicate or delay the already ongoing, legally complex case against Pocketpair, especially since Nintendo has reportedly already rewritten its own patents mid-lawsuit, indicating difficulties in enforcing the original claims. [12]

Therefore, the likelihood is high that the Once Human crossover, although mechanistically provocative, will initially be ignored by Nintendo until the exact implementation details have been analyzed and the legally active case against Pocketpair is clearer.

V. Nintendo’s Reaction and the Current Legal Status

The user’s central question concerns Nintendo’s reaction to the Once Human announcement.

5.1 Confirmation of the Status Quo

As of the time of reporting, there is no public evidence confirming an official reaction from Nintendo or The Pokémon Company (TPC) to the Once Human crossover update. No public statements, cease and desist claims, warnings, or lawsuits specifically targeting NetEase or Starry Studio regarding the use of Palworld-like or Pokémon-like mechanisms in Once Human exist. [3, 4, 5]

It can be assumed that Nintendo will await the live implementation of the update on October 30 to conduct a founded legal analysis of the actually implemented mechanics before potentially initiating legal steps.

5.2 The Palworld Precedent as a Legal Focus

Nintendo’s legal capacities are currently heavily focused on the Pocketpair case, the developer of Palworld. Nintendo has sued Pocketpair in Japan for patent infringement. [10]

Nintendo’s legal maneuvers in this case, including adjusting its own patent claims during the ongoing proceedings and the aggressive stance that modifications (mods like the Dark Souls 3 mod) do not count as Prior Art [2, 12], underscore the difficulties in enforcing patent claims in a rapidly evolving gaming landscape. This approach shows that Nintendo is doing everything in its power to uphold the contested patents, whose validity is strongly doubted by leading IP experts. The aggressive nature of this litigation highlights that Nintendo is first focusing its resources on establishing a successful precedent before opening new fronts against other, financially stronger competitors like NetEase.

VI. Strategic Conclusions and Outlook

6.1 Recommendations for Risk Minimization for NetEase/Starry Studio

Given Nintendo’s legal attack strategy and the strategic significance of the Once Human crossover, the following preventive steps for risk minimization are advisable:

1. Forensic Design Auditing: Starry Studio must conduct a detailed patent auditing of the “Deviation” mechanics. It must be ensured that the implementation of the Summoning and Battling system does not literally fulfill the specific claims of Patent 12,403,397. Developers should concentrate on the real-time interaction and the player’s direct control options to differentiate themselves from the patented logic. [11]
2. Comprehensive Prior Art Documentation: NetEase should prepare a robust defense strategy that includes comprehensive documentation of Prior Art. This must prove the existence of earlier, non-patented game systems covering the fundamental concepts of capturing, accompanying, and battle management to quickly file an invalidation action (Invalidation Action) against Nintendo’s patents in the event of a lawsuit. [2]
3. Highlighting Differentiation: Communication should emphasize the unique selling propositions of Once Human, especially the Deviation Fusion System [9] and the fundamental integration into the game’s open-world survival shooter core, to clarify the mechanical and conceptual distance from Pokémon and its turn-based systems.

6.2 Outlook on the Patent Landscape in Gaming

The conflict over Pokémon mechanics, which now extends beyond Palworld to titles like Once Human, is an indicator of a global trend where established IP holders attempt to control general game concepts through questionable patents.

The patents cast a far-reaching “Shadow Effect” on the entire industry. [1] Even if the patents are legally weak, they compel developers to censor or adjust their creative decisions to avoid the high costs and risks of litigation. NetEase’s decision to proceed with the crossover is therefore not only a commercial move but an important signal to the industry that financially strong players are willing to oppose this attempted “bullying.” The outcome of a potential confrontation between Nintendo and NetEase could thus sustainably shape the future patentability of generic gameplay mechanics in key markets. Continuous and critical observation of the ongoing Palworld proceedings remains the most important early indicator of Nintendo’s aggressiveness and the likely success prospects of legal steps against Once Human. [12]