任天堂與寶可夢公司近期共同獲得的一項新專利在遊戲業界掀起不小的波瀾。這項專利的核心內容是有關「召喚角色進行戰鬥」的遊戲機制，也就是玩家可以在戰鬥中召喚特定角色（如寶可夢）進行戰鬥的設計。由於這一機制不僅是《寶可夢》系列的核心玩法，同時也廣泛存在於許多其他角色扮演或戰鬥類遊戲中，因此引發業界與玩家的普遍擔憂：若該專利被嚴格執行，可能對整個遊戲產業造成深遠影響。

根據專利內容顯示，該設計不僅涵蓋玩家召喚戰鬥單位的方式，還涉及召喚角色的互動、戰鬥指令以及回合切換等整體結構。若這項專利獲得法律上的嚴格保護，理論上任何包含「召喚、指揮角色戰鬥」的遊戲都可能被視為侵權。這包括了從《最終幻想》、《數碼寶貝》到《原神》等諸多知名作品，使得整個業界對其潛在影響極為敏感。

然而，法律專家指出，任天堂與寶可夢公司想要以此專利對其他公司提出法律主張，成功的可能性非常低。洛杉磯科技與媒體律師事務所創始人David Nima Sharifi表示，這項專利的範圍過於寬泛，並非針對具體的技術創新，例如控制器、網路架構或圖形渲染，而是針對「遊戲機制」這類抽象概念。根據美國及日本的專利法規定，若一項專利缺乏明確的技術創新或新穎性，將難以被法院認定為有效。

值得注意的是，這項專利的曝光恰逢任天堂在日本對遊戲開發商Pocketpair提起訴訟，指控其熱門遊戲《幻獸帕魯》（Palworld）涉嫌侵犯與《寶可夢》相關的智慧財產權。外界普遍猜測，這項新專利可能成為任天堂在訴訟中的輔助武器，用以加強其法律立場。不過，專家指出，即使任天堂最終試圖以該專利控告他人，法院也很可能以「遊戲玩法屬於通用概念」為由判決無效。

若這項專利最終被法院認可並可執行，對遊戲產業的影響將是劇烈的。首先，許多依賴「召喚角色」機制的遊戲將不得不重新設計核心玩法，甚至可能被迫支付授權費或面臨侵權訴訟。其次，遊戲開發的創造力將受到一定限制，因為「玩法創意」被納入專利範疇後，其他開發者將面臨法律風險，導致整體創新空間縮小。

總體而言，這起事件再次引發遊戲產業對「玩法能否申請專利」的老議題討論。專家普遍認為，遊戲的創意與互動方式應屬文化表達的一部分，而非可被壟斷的技術創新。若玩法專利化趨勢持續擴大，未來遊戲開發的自由度恐將受到極大挑戰。

Nintendo and The Pokémon Company have recently obtained a new patent that has sparked significant concern among gamers and industry insiders alike. The patent centers on a gameplay mechanic involving the “summoning of characters to battle,” a concept that forms the core of the Pokémon series—where trainers summon Pokémon to fight opponents. Because similar systems exist in many other role-playing and combat games, the patent has raised fears that it could potentially impact an entire genre of games.

The patent’s scope is broad, covering not only the act of summoning characters but also the way these summoned entities interact, execute battle commands, and switch turns during combat. If enforced strictly, any game featuring a similar mechanic—such as Final Fantasy, Digimon, or Genshin Impact—could theoretically fall under potential infringement, which explains the growing anxiety across the gaming industry.

However, legal experts argue that Nintendo and The Pokémon Company would face major obstacles if they attempted to enforce this patent. David Nima Sharifi, founder of a Los Angeles-based tech and media law firm, explained that the patent’s claims are unusually broad and lack a concrete technical innovation. Instead of focusing on hardware, network architecture, or graphics rendering, it targets gameplay concepts—abstract ideas that are generally not eligible for patent protection under U.S. or Japanese law. To be upheld, a patent must demonstrate genuine novelty and technical contribution, both of which appear questionable in this case.

The timing of this patent’s publication has also drawn attention, as Nintendo is currently suing game developer Pocketpair in Japan, alleging that Palworld—a hit game often compared to Pokémon—infringes on its intellectual property. Some analysts believe this newly granted patent could strengthen Nintendo’s legal strategy against Palworld. Nevertheless, experts predict that even if Nintendo tries to invoke the patent in court, it would likely be invalidated on the grounds that “gameplay mechanics are common concepts” rather than proprietary inventions.

If, hypothetically, the patent were upheld and enforceable, the consequences for the gaming industry could be profound. Many titles that rely on “summoning” systems might need to redesign their core gameplay or pay licensing fees to avoid litigation. This could stifle creative freedom across the industry, discouraging developers from experimenting with similar systems for fear of legal repercussions.

Ultimately, this case reignites the long-standing debate over whether “gameplay ideas” should be patentable at all. Most industry experts agree that interactive mechanics belong to the realm of artistic or creative expression, not technological innovation. Should the trend of patenting gameplay concepts continue, it could significantly restrict creative development and reshape how future games are designed.