Hello friends, I hope you all had a restful reading break! I wanted to highlight a major update in a long-running legal battle in the video game law world. If you haven’t been following, The Pokémon Company has been involved in a lawsuit with ‘copycat’ game developers for years, and they recently announced that the case has been settled, accompanied by a public apology from the defendant companies.
A Game That Sparked Controversy a Decade Ago
This case goes all the way back to 2015, when two Chinese game developers, Guangzhou Maichi Network Technology and Khorgos Fangchi Network Technology, released Pocket Monster: Remake, a mobile game that looked identical to the Pokémon franchise. The game borrowed heavily from Pokémon’s character designs, gameplay mechanics, music, and branding, leading to widespread confusion among players (it literally copied everything!!!). Despite its obvious similarities, Pocket Monster: Remake remained available for years, reportedly bringing in over $42 million in revenue in it’s first year.
The Legal Battle & Settlement
By December 2021, The Pokémon Company had had enough and filed a $72 million lawsuit in China, arguing that the game was infringing on its intellectual property. While the lawsuit was ongoing, the developers continued running the game and raking in profits. Fast forward to September 25, 2024, nearly three years later, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court finally ruled in favor of The Pokémon Company. The court ordered the developers to pay 107 million yuan (about $14.7 million USD) in damages and issue a public apology. But that wasn’t the end of it. The developers appealed, setting off more legal back-and-forth and a push for mediation.
After months of negotiations, The Pokémon Company and the developers reached a settlement in December 2024, officially closing the case. As part of the agreement:
- The developers issued a public apology, admitting to copyright violations.
- The financial terms weren’t fully disclosed, but the original damages ruling still stood.
The settlement was finalized in December, but The Pokémon Company announced it publicly on February 19, 2025.
In their apology, the developers admitted:
- “[Pocket Monster: Remake] extensively used design elements of the well-known Pokémon Video Game Series, infringing the copyrights related to the Pokémon Video Games, and has unfairly taken advantage of the fame and reputation of the Pokémon Video Games”
- “[our actions] have caused significant economic losses to the rights holders and severely damaged the image of the original Pokémon Video Games”
- “We hereby sincerely apologize to [The Pokemon Company] and other rights holders, as well as the vast number of players, consumers, and the general public.”
- “We will place a high priority on intellectual property protection, refrain from infringing upon any related intellectual property rights or interests of the Pokémon Video Games and their rights holders …”
This public statement marks one of the most significant acknowledgments of copyright infringement in the gaming industry’s history in China.
Legal and Industry Implications
This case marks a significant milestone for gaming law. Historically, copyright enforcement in China has been inconsistent, making it tough for foreign companies to protect their IP. The Pokémon Company’s persistence shows that major publishers are willing to go the distance to defend their assets, possibly even signaling stricter copyright enforcement in China and beyond.
Another key takeaway is the growing debate over copyright protection in gaming. While it’s widely accepted that things like character designs and branding are protected, game mechanics exist in a legal gray area. This ruling strengthens the argument that blatant copies of another game’s assets cross the line, but it also raises broader questions:
- Should companies be able to claim ownership over specific gameplay styles?
- Should video game mechanics get stronger copyright protection, or would aggressive legal enforcement stifle creativity and innovation in game design?
- Does this case set a precedent for major corporations aggressively protecting their IP against smaller developers? Is that good or bad for the industry?
I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this!
This video explains everything in further detail if you’re interested in learning more:
Sources
- Official Pokémon Company Statement.
- https://www.polygon.com/news/527313/pokemon-company-lawsuit-settlement-china-pocket-monster-remake-public-apology?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- https://www.ign.com/articles/makers-of-very-blatant-pokmon-copycat-video-game-forced-to-make-very-public-apology-the-pokmon-company-wins-substantial-damages
Check out theVideos of Interest to Law 423 on YouTube 
Communications Law
Join the Community!
Hi thanks for sharing this article! I was hoping that someone was going to cover this topic in one of their presentations this year. I think that this case should be easily distinguishable and should not be construed as a statement of law as to if companies can own video game mechanics.
What immediately jumped to mind was the “Palworld lawsuit”. For those who may not have heard about the lawsuit, Nintendo filed an action for 3 copyright infringements on the developers of the popular game Palworld. Palworld can be said to have many of the same “mechanics” of Nintendo’s Pokemon games, including capturing monsters in an open world and using them in battles. Many of Palworld’s monsters resemble some Pokemon as well. But that is largely where the resemblance of the games ends. Palworld has also incorporated gameplay elements that Pokemon games have never had in the entire 28 year existence. I wouldn’t say these mechanics are all that original either, from watching gameplay on YouTube it looks a lot like Fortnite battle mechanics.
Nintendo’s suit was for only about $65,000 US, but more importantly seeks costly injunctions against Palworld’s developers. I think that the problem with companies attempting to own gameplay mechanics is the potential chilling effect this could have on game development. It is also absurd on a conceptual level. All art is on some level derivative of previous works. So long as developers are not crossing the line (like the Pocket Monster company clearly did) on trying to pass off their game as being affiliated with the original, as that truly infringes on that parties legitimate brand interests.
Would love to hear if anyone has an update on that lawsuit? I heard that Palworld has removed some features of their game, but am not sure if this is true. Does anyone in the class play Palworld?