Even if this guy isn't the actual lawyer for the case, he's literally still a lawyer, he's not supposed to be imagining shit, his job is to read and reference.

Also weird that he would reference that Pokemon and Palworld are "such different games" if the actual patents in questions aren't known and if Nintendo have not named Pokemon as the game/franchise that contains the infringed patents.

The Pokemon connection just seems to be a conclusion people reached because of external similarities, but Nintendo could just be like naming a Zelda or Mario patent too, whatever they think might stick far enough to scare the Palworld lawyers.