Sega’s Lawsuit Against Bank of Innovation Promises To Change Game Development Forever

'Memento Mori' (Image: Bank of Innovation)

The gaming world is constantly innovating, but many of those innovations are often “borrowed” from competitors. A raft of new litigation could reshape the ways that developers work in the future. One prominent case, Sega v. Bank of Innovation, could rewrite how developers craft gacha game mechanics.

Gaming mechanics are ubiquitous, but each game needs something unique in functionality. The Sega lawsuit and another involving the hit game PalWord will shape how gaming companies handle development in the future. This could lead to lawsuit wars in a strange variation of a battle royale.

The basis of the Sega v. Bank of Innovation lawsuit is copyright infringement, the same premise as Nintendo’s lawsuit against PalWorld. Palworld was sued over the use of Pokemon Mechanics (e.g., Pokeballs and pet-catching mechanics) and other similar patents, while Sega and the Bank of Innovation are fighting over gotcha mechanics.

Sega alleges that the Bank of Innovation has infringed on up to five of its patents. The patents cover pity, rolling and synthesis systems.

Both companies have previously negotiated to resolve the suits, but they have failed. Automaton’s translation of Otaku Sougen’s article on the subject reveals that Sega is seeking 1 billion Yen ($6.6 million) in damages for the infringement.

Bank of Innovation is the creator behind the games Knights of Excalibur, Pocket Knights, Memento Mori, Cryptract and Mitrasphere. Sega has Granblue Fantasy and Cinderella Girls in its lineup.

Bank of Innovation declared it will stay in business regardless of the lawsuit’s outcomes.

“Both cases slow the creation of games and mechanics,” veteran Shadow, using his gamertag, told uGames. “You want competition around to help creativity and further game productions.”

Shadow said he wasn’t happy with how PalWorld had turned out, but he hoped to see new content he could play. He explained the gatcha mechanic’s basis of pity, roll-tracking and reinforcing, and other mechanics mentioned in the patents were prevalent in different games.

The lawsuits raise the open-ended question of what will happen to small gaming companies when bigger ones sue over game mechanics.