Nintendo has a long history of turning wild ideas into hardware, but some of its patents are so outlandish they sound like urban legends. From inflatable saddles to sanity meters and Pokémon that fight on your behalf, the company’s filings reveal a version of gaming that is stranger, and sometimes more unsettling, than anything that has actually shipped. I want to walk through five of the most unbelievable examples and how they fit into a broader strategy that now has regulators and players paying close attention.
The inflatable horseback riding saddle that thinks it is a dragon
Few documents capture Nintendo’s eccentric streak better than the patent often described as an inflatable horseback riding simulator for Wii. On paper it is a cushion that players straddle while holding a controller, but the design goes far beyond a simple toy horse, with diagrams that show a full saddle-shaped controller and an internal structure meant to translate the rider’s movements into on-screen action. The filing, highlighted in coverage of Nintendo Files Horseback Riding Simulator Patent, even specifies that the saddle is inflatable, a detail that makes the whole thing feel like a cross between a fitness accessory and a carnival ride.
The weirdness does not stop at horses. In a separate breakdown of the same filing, the device is described as a Cushion that can also simulate dragons, griffins, unicorns and giant eagles, with the patent text spelling out that the player’s bouncing and leaning would be mapped to flying or galloping. Another analysis of the Wii saddle concept notes that Nintendo did not want to limit the peripheral to horseback riding and that, According to the patent, the new controller could be used for a range of riding and balance games. The result is a device that sounds like a joke, yet is meticulously engineered in the paperwork, a reminder that Nintendo’s hardware lab often prototypes far stranger ideas than the ones that reach store shelves.
Why Nintendo keeps patenting hardware that never ships
On the surface, an inflatable saddle that doubles as a dragon mount looks like a one-off curiosity, but it fits a pattern in how Nintendo approaches intellectual property. The company has a habit of locking down unusual control schemes and accessories long before it decides whether they will become real products, effectively reserving a slice of the design space for itself. Coverage of the Wii saddle points out that Thankfully the patent system gives everyone an early look at what might be the next obscure gaming gadget, even if it never leaves the lab. That glimpse is valuable because it shows how Nintendo experiments with ways to make players move, lean and balance, then selectively promotes only the most promising concepts into full hardware lines like Wii Fit or Ring Fit Adventure.
There is also a defensive logic at work. By filing patents on oddball controllers, Nintendo can prevent rivals from copying the same ideas if they ever prove commercially viable, while still having the option to walk away if the market is not there. A broader analysis of the company’s recent filings notes that Nintendo has been aggressive in protecting the most distinctive parts of its designs and concepts, even when those concepts push into uncomfortable territory for players and developers. The inflatable saddle is a perfect example of this mindset: a device so specific and strange that no one else would think to build it, yet still carefully fenced off in the patent record.
The sanity meter that turns horror into a legal minefield
Not all of Nintendo’s strangest patents are physical gadgets. One of the most quietly influential filings in its portfolio covers a sanity-level system in a video game, a mechanic that tracks a character’s mental state and changes the world in response. The patent, identified in legal commentary by the number 954, is often associated with a horror title where the screen distorts, audio glitches and even fake system errors appear as the protagonist loses grip on reality. While the filing’s drawings look mundane, the underlying idea is anything but, because it effectively claims ownership over a broad category of psychological tricks that horror designers might want to use.
Legal analysts have pointed out that, While the patent might sound strange, it has real consequences for how other studios approach similar mechanics, since they risk infringement if they mimic the specific way sanity is tracked and used to manipulate the player’s perception. The fact that Nintendo holds this kind of claim shows that the company is willing to patent not just hardware, but also the psychological framing of gameplay itself. For horror fans, that raises an odd tension: the more inventive a mechanic feels, the more likely it is that someone has already tried to lock it down in the patent office.
From playful to predatory: the new wave of controversial patents
In the last few years, Nintendo’s patent strategy has shifted from whimsical experiments toward systems that critics see as more controlling. Commentators tracking the company’s filings have described a new cluster of patents that govern how games can react to player behavior, how content is served and even how monetization hooks are embedded into core mechanics. One analysis frames it bluntly, noting that Just as fans were celebrating announcements like the Super Mario Galaxy Movie and the, they were also grappling with a set of filings that could reshape how interactive systems are designed.
A separate breakdown of the same trend, syndicated through another outlet, repeats that Nintendo is full of surprises and that, Just as fans were excited about Super Mario Galaxy Movie and the broader expansion of its brands, the company’s patent portfolio had been sent in a direction that alarmed designers. The concern is not that Nintendo is experimenting, which it has always done, but that it is now trying to secure exclusive rights over systems that govern player engagement and monetization at a very deep level. That is a very different kind of weirdness from an inflatable dragon saddle, and it is why the latest filings have sparked such intense debate.
The Pokémon summoning patent that triggered a government review
The flashpoint for this debate is a patent that ties directly into Pokémon, arguably Nintendo’s most valuable franchise. Reporting on the filing describes it as a controversial Nintendo patent, specifically a Pokémon mechanic where creatures can be summoned automatically to engage in battle for you, with the system making decisions about when and how to deploy them. The description of this Nintendo Pok Summoning Patent Under Review notes that, Back in the initial wave of coverage, the gaming industry was stunned by how far the automation went, effectively turning parts of the game into a background process that plays itself.
What elevates this from a quirky design choice to a major story is the reaction from regulators. The same report explains that the Pokémon Summoning Patent Under Review has drawn scrutiny from the U.S. government, with officials examining whether the system’s design could be used to manipulate players, especially younger ones, into spending more time or money without fully realizing how the game is making decisions on their behalf. When a mechanic that sounds like a power fantasy on paper, Pokémon that fight for you, ends up in a formal investigation, it underscores how far Nintendo’s patent ambitions have moved from toys and sanity meters into the realm of behavioral design and consumer protection.
How fans and developers are pushing back
The backlash to these newer patents has been loud and unusually organized for a topic as technical as intellectual property. On one community forum, a detailed post titled in part Are Nintendo’s New Patents Dangerous… or Just Business As, lays out how, in September of 2025, the Patent and Trademark Office the US PTO granted Nintendo two separate patents that together could give the company sweeping control over certain gameplay structures. The author argues that Nintendo is not just protecting specific implementations, but potentially boxing out entire categories of design that other studios might want to explore.
Another widely shared thread, bluntly titled Nintendo & The Pokemon Company’s new patents are vile., argues that Nintendo just wrapped up and had their new patent approved today and the other approved last week, and that Many different gaming scenarios could be affected if the systems are enforced aggressively. The post warns that the patents could be used to force some form an action from players, such as nudging them toward specific in-game purchases or engagement loops. For developers who grew up admiring Nintendo’s creativity, the idea that the company might now use its legal muscle to dictate how others design games feels like a betrayal of the open, experimental spirit that once defined the medium.
The rare intervention from the U.S. patent office
The controversy has not been confined to message boards. In a separate discussion among PC gaming enthusiasts, one post highlights what it calls a HUGE blow to Nintendo, quoting a statement that begins, “In a stunning development attributable to the public outrage that started here on games fray and reflecting concern ov” and goes on to describe how the head of the U.S. patent office took the rare step of intervening in the review of the Pokémon-related filings. The thread, which links to the full explanation of this Nov development, frames it as a sign that public pressure can still influence how far game companies are allowed to push their patent claims.
For an agency that usually operates far from the spotlight, this kind of direct response to community outrage is highly unusual. It suggests that the combination of a beloved brand, a vulnerable audience of young players and a set of patents that appear to automate and monetize their behavior has crossed a line that regulators are no longer comfortable ignoring. When the head of the office steps in, it sends a message not just to Nintendo, but to every publisher watching, that the era of quietly patenting aggressive engagement systems without scrutiny may be coming to an end.
YouTube and creators turn patent law into a spectator sport
The debate over Nintendo’s patents has also spilled into creator culture, where long-form videos break down the filings in language that non-lawyers can understand. One widely circulated clip, titled in part Nintendo Gets an Insane Patent That Could Affect All of Gaming, opens with the host greeting viewers with “hey everybody welcome back to video game. so Ding series who’s Nintendo suing or screwing this week and trust me Ninten” before diving into the details. The video, available on YouTube, walks through how the patents might be enforced and what they could mean for indie developers who lack the legal resources to fight back.
What stands out in this kind of coverage is how it reframes patent law as part of the entertainment ecosystem, not just a dry legal process. By turning complex filings into shareable commentary, creators help set the tone of the conversation, whether that is outrage, resignation or cautious optimism that the worst outcomes can be avoided. For Nintendo, that means every strange or aggressive patent is now subject to instant, highly public scrutiny, amplified by personalities who can make or break community sentiment with a single upload.
Five patents, one uneasy future for Nintendo’s imagination
Looked at together, these five patents trace a line from playful experimentation to something more fraught. The inflatable saddle, with its promise of riding a Aug dragon or unicorn in your living room, shows Nintendo at its most charmingly odd. The sanity-level system, locked down under the 954 patent, reveals a company willing to claim ownership over the psychological levers that make horror games so memorable. The newer Pokémon summoning system, now under government review, and the broader set of engagement-focused filings show how that same inventive energy can be turned toward automating and monetizing player behavior in ways that feel less like fun and more like manipulation.
As a reporter and a player, I see a tension that Nintendo has not yet resolved. The company’s strangest patents are often the ones that make its games feel magical, but they are also the ones that risk turning that magic into a walled garden where only one firm is allowed to play. Whether regulators, courts and the community can nudge Nintendo back toward the inflatable-saddle side of weirdness, and away from the predatory edge of automated engagement, will shape not just the next generation of its consoles, but the creative freedom of the entire industry.
More from MorningOverview