Dr Wright (self-styled creator of Bitcoin) v Crypto Open Patent Alliance | Vexatious Litigation
In this article, Stuart Southall of KANGS discusses the recent Judgment from Mr Justice Mellor handed down in yet another ‘battle’ between Dr Craig Steven Wright (‘Dr Wright’) and Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA).
The Judgment of Mr Justice Mellor has drawn a ‘line’ in respect of the litigation commenced by Dr Wright, in which Dr Wright had alleged that, amongst other things, his Intellectual Property Rights had been substantially infringed.
Who is Dr Wright?
For a very long time, Dr Wright asserted that he is ‘Satoshi Nakamoto,’ the creator, and holder of the majority of ‘Bitcoin,’ making him one of the richest men in the world.
‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ is a pseudonym which he claims to have monikered himself and he also alleges that he wrote the original ‘Bitcoin White Paper’ in 2008, and released the Bitcoin Source Code which created the Bitcoin system.
He maintains that he is a person of unique intellect and the holder of numerous degrees and PhDs, all of which provide him with the platform and knowledge that lead him in the creation of ‘Bitcoin.’
As part of his assertion as to being “Satoshi Nakamoto”, Dr Wright also commenced several actions (against many parties) including claims for defamation and Intellectual Property infringement. In those claims, he concentrated on allegations of copyright and database infringement.
Unfortunately for Dr Wright, the English High Court did not accept that he is Satoshi Nakamoto and that decision has made the pursuit of all of his other claims even more difficult.
The Case in Focus
Crypto Open Patent Alliance-v-Craig Steven Wright [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch):
The Circumstances
Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), a not-for -profit group which prevents individuals from creating an unfair monopoly by acquiring patents for cryptocurrency, brought an action against Dr Wright.
As part of COPAs ‘heads of claim,’ it requested the Court to declare a ‘negative declaration,’ namely that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto. This meant that to defeat this “negative claim”, Dr Wright produced significant documentation that he sought to rely upon to affirm his position that he was “Satoshi Nakamoto”.
In handing down its judgment, Mr Justice Mellor was brutal in respect of the evidence Dr Wright adduced.
The Court Judgment
In his written Judgment in May 2024 Mr Justice Mellor stated:
“Many of Dr Wright’s lies contained a grain of truth (which is sometimes said to be the mark of an accomplished liar), but there were many which did not and were outright lies. As soon as one lie was exposed, Dr Wright resorted to further lies and evasions. The final destination frequently turned out to be either Dr Wright blaming some other (often unidentified) person for his predicament or what can only be described as technobabble delivered by him in the witness box. Although as a person with expertise in IT security, Dr Wright must have thought his forgeries would provide convincing evidence to support his claim to be Satoshi or some other point of detail and would go undetected, the evidence shows, as I explain below and in the Appendix, that most of his forgeries turned out to be clumsy. Indeed, certain of Dr Wright's responses in cross-examination effectively acknowledged that point: from my recollection at least twice, he indicated if he had wanted to forge a document, he would have done a much better job.
… The true position is far simpler. It is, however, far from simple because Dr Wright has lied so much over so many years that, on certain points, it can be difficult to pinpoint what actually happened. Those difficulties do not detract from the fact that there is a very considerable body of evidence against Dr Wright being Satoshi. To the extent that it is said there is evidence supporting his claim, it is at best questionable or of very dubious relevance or entirely circumstantial and at worst, it is fabricated and/or based on documents I am satisfied have been forged on a grand scale by Dr Wright. These fabrications and forgeries were exposed in the evidence which I received during the Trial. For that reason, this Judgment contains considerable technical and other detail which is required to expose the true scale of his mendacious campaign to prove he was/is Satoshi Nakamoto. This detail was set out in the extensive Written Closing Submissions prepared by COPA and the Developers and further points drawn out in their oral closing arguments.”
To summarise, the Court found that Dr Wright is not:
- the author of the Bitcoin White Paper,
- the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto in the period between 2008 and 2011,
- the person who created the Bitcoin system,
- the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin Software.
Failed Attempt to Appeal and Sanctions
As a consequence, all of Dr Wright’s other claims were unsuccessful. Despite such a distinct and clear Judgment, he still sought to appeal the High Court’s decision. Permission to appeal was refused on 29 November 2024 on the basis that it was totally without merit with Arnold LJ explaining that Dr Wright did not have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Dr Wright ignored Mr Lord Justice Arnold’s Judgment and appealed. At the same time, Dr Wright also continued his campaign of vexatious litigation by commencing a claim seeking £900 billion in respect of alleged Intellectual Property Infringement.
Following a contempt hearing, on 20 December 2024, the Court ordered that Dr Wright should be committed to HMP Pentonville for a period of twelve months, suspended until 20 December 2026 provided that he commits no further breach of the Court Order.
On 7 March 2025, before the High Court, Dr Wright was penalised for submitting AI-generated ‘hallucinations’ in his application to appeal. Additionally, the Judge granted a General Restraint Order (an order that is harsher than other restraint orders that may be available) because it believed that there was a significant prospect that Dr Wright would continue to make applications and bring claims that were “totally without merit” and that a normal civil restraint order would not be sufficient.
The Restraint Order prevents Dr Wright from involvement in any litigation for a period of three years.
The Order does not of course prevent Dr Wright from bringing a claim, it merely means that he has to persuade the Court that it has merits before the claim can be brought.
Dr Wright’s deliberate lies and misrepresentations, as referred to in Court Judgments, has resulted in many days of wasted Court time and has imposed upon many parties significant, and otherwise avoidable costs. Whilst he has been ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds by way of costs to his opponents, in addition to his own costs, the wastage of time he has caused is monumental.
General Comment Upon Vexatious Litigation
Undeniably, it is important to protect Intellectual Property Rights and the innovation that Intellectual Property covers. However, there has to be a point where protection is pushed too far and the continued commencement of actions becomes vexatious.
In the world of litigation generally, the Court has to decide between the stifling of legitimate claims and the protection of defendants drawn into unjustified and vexatious litigation.
Commercial prudence has to be an important consideration when contemplating engaging with the litigation process. Although, when forced into the position of being a defendant you do not have the luxury of being able to choose and that is precisely when the courts have to prevent unjustified and repetitive court actions.
How Can We Assist?
Intellectual Property (IP) is a complex area of law. IP owners have an obligation to ensure that their IP is protected but must be done correctly, otherwise it is possible for the IP owner to receive a claim under s21 Trade Marks Act 1994.
Add to such matters the fact that litigation by its very nature is risky and with that risk, is associated cost.
The team at KANGS is highly experienced in handling Intellectual Property disputes of every nature and will be pleased to provide you with immediate and professional assistance and support.
If we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our team using the details below:
Tel: 0333 370 4333
Email: info@kangssolicitors.co.uk
We provide initial no obligation discussion at our three offices in London, Birmingham, and Manchester. Alternatively, discussions can be held through video conferencing or telephone.
Top ranked by leading legal directories Chambers UK and the Legal 500.
