It’s not. In fact you know how this kind of patent gets invalidated, by pointing out what’s know as prior art. Things that did “this” before that patent was filed. So Palworlds and any other game that involves capturing a creature. This “killer patent” won’t stand up in Court unless the Japanese Court is entirely different than the US and German Courts.
The request for an expedited review of patent number 7545191 also facilitated the approval of three other patents from Nintendo and The Pokemon Company (7528390, 7493117 and 7505854). Kurihara noted that amending an existing patent for specific litigation purposes is an established industry practice, and possibly what happened in this particular case.
It’s not. In fact you know how this kind of patent gets invalidated, by pointing out what’s know as prior art. Things that did “this” before that patent was filed. So Palworlds and any other game that involves capturing a creature. This “killer patent” won’t stand up in Court unless the Japanese Court is entirely different than the US and German Courts.
Removed by mod
This does not make sense to me.