Wright is Wrong: High Court rules that Dr Craig Wright is not the creator of Bitcoin

In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch), after a six-week trial in the Intellectual Property Court, Mr Justice Mellor found that Dr Craig Wright is not the individual behind the notorious pseudonym for the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.

The claim was brought by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), in the midst of numerous claims advanced by Dr Wright against other parties. The quantum of these other claims ran into the hundreds of billions of dollars and many were directed against private individuals.

Decision

Having found Dr Wright not to be the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto, the judge ruled that Dr Wright had therefore not penned Bitcoin’s foundational White Paper back in 2008 and had not developed either the ‘Bitcoin System’ or the initial versions of the Bitcoin software (that is, written the source code which underpins the cryptocurrency). Dr Wright was therefore entitled to none of the intellectual property in respect of which he had made claims. Mellor J was so convinced of the evidence that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto at the conclusion of the trial back in March that he made an oral judgment in respect of four declarations sought by COPA.

However, it is not simply the fact that the Judge did not accept Dr Wright’s claims that is of relevance in this judgment, but also the findings that he made in reaching his conclusion. The Judge agreed with COPA’s argument that Dr Wright had engaged in a ‘mendacious campaign’, stating in the judgment that he was ‘entirely satisfied that Dr Wright lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly’ during the course of proceedings.

The Judge found Dr Wright to be ‘an extremely slippery witness’ and was particularly damning of Dr Wright’s performance in cross-examination. Additionally, the Judge found 47 instances of forgery in the case, at times putting Dr Wright’s solicitors, ‘in an impossible position’. Certain documents submitted by Dr Wright as evidence, claimed to have been from the period between 2008 and 2011, were found to have been created shortly before the trial begun.

Key Takeaways

COPA have sought an injunction against Dr Wright, restraining him from claiming that he is the author of and/or owner of the copyright in the Bitcoin White Paper, and taking steps which involve him asserting the same. Mellor J deferred the question of whether or not to injunct Dr Wright (and the terms of such an injunction). How any injunctive relief would be enforced by COPA, who may not be the recipient of any such future claims by Dr Wright, is going to be a key issue for the court to consider at a Form of Order hearing, the date for which is yet to be set.

The Court’s determinations as to Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto will no doubt be a helpful tool in assisting future parties considering seeking injunctive relief in respect of intellectual property relating to digital assets. And, at least for the time being, this decision is likely to provide some comfort to users and developers in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

A company associated with Dr Wright, Tulip Trading Limited, is similarly involved in litigation that will be of interest to developers. In Tulip Trading v van der Laan [2023] EWCA Civ 83, the Court of Appeal found that an argument Bitcoin developers owed fiduciary duties to users had a real chance of success. An earlier article, discussing this decision and the impact it may have on the use and legal enforcement of cryptocurrency in the United Kingdom can be found here.