As cryptocurrency gains mainstream traction, legal systems worldwide are grappling with how to apply traditional legal frameworks—like intellectual property rights—to this modern, decentralized technology. Among the most high-profile legal disputes in this space is the series of cases involving Dr. Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin.
These cases, unfolding primarily in UK courts, raise fundamental questions about authorship, copyright ownership, and the legal status of open-source software. They also touch on defamation, digital identity, and the limits of judicial process in cyberspace.
Four Interlinked Intellectual Property Lawsuits
Currently, four major legal actions involving Craig Wright are underway, all interconnected through his claim to be the true inventor of Bitcoin. These cases examine various aspects of intellectual property law under UK jurisdiction, including copyright, database rights, passing off (a form of unfair competition), and defamation.
All four cases have been assigned to Judge Mellor since early 2023—an indication of the court’s effort to streamline proceedings due to overlapping factual and legal issues. Although each case involves different parties and claims, they share a central question: Is Craig Wright actually Satoshi Nakamoto?
This “identity issue” was formally recognized as a preliminary point of contention. In July 2023, the parties in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright agreed that a dedicated trial in January 2024 would determine Wright’s identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. The outcome of that trial will bind the other three cases.
👉 Discover how blockchain disputes are shaping global IP law—explore real-time case insights here.
Due to the scale and complexity of these lawsuits, cost protection measures have been imposed. In both the Coinbase and Kraken cases, Wright was ordered to post substantial security for costs—reflecting concerns over potential frivolous litigation or inability to cover opponents’ legal fees if he loses.
Key Intellectual Property Claims
1. The COPA Lawsuit: A Challenge to Wright’s Authorship
The most advanced of the IP disputes is brought by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), a nonprofit coalition formed to defend open innovation in blockchain technology. COPA has filed for a declaration that:
- Craig Wright did not write the 2008 Bitcoin whitepaper titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
- He does not hold copyright over the document
- COPA’s use of the whitepaper does not infringe any alleged copyright
This declaratory action aims to protect developers and companies from future licensing demands based on Wright’s contested claims.
2. Coinbase and Kraken: Passing Off and Brand Reputation
In separate but parallel actions filed on the same day, Wright—alongside his company Wright International Investments Ltd—sued cryptocurrency exchanges Coinbase and Kraken, alleging they damaged his commercial goodwill by allowing public figures to question his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto.
These are not copyright claims per se but fall under passing off, a common law tort used to prevent misrepresentation that harms business reputation. The argument hinges on whether Wright has established a recognizable brand tied to Satoshi Nakamoto and whether public denial of his identity causes financial harm.
However, critics argue that such claims threaten free speech and open discourse within the crypto community.
3. BTC Core: Copyright in Bitcoin’s File Format
The most legally significant case is Wright v BTC Core, where Wright asserts copyright over the Bitcoin File Format (BFF) and related database rights. With 26 defendants—including core developers and node operators—the case could redefine how software standards are treated under copyright law.
Initially, the High Court dismissed Wright’s claim in February 2023, ruling that the BFF wasn’t “recorded” in a fixed form as required by Section 3(2) of the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).
But in July 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision (Wright v BTC Core [2023] EWCA Civ 868), finding there was a serious issue to be tried. The court acknowledged that digital formats like BFF might qualify for protection if they exhibit sufficient originality and fixation—even without physical documentation.
This reversal keeps the door open for software structure and protocol design to be protected under copyright—a precedent with far-reaching implications for open-source development.
👉 Stay ahead of crypto legal trends with up-to-date analysis on regulatory shifts.
Defamation Case: When Reputation Meets Fraud
Wright has also pursued defamation claims against individuals who publicly called him a fraud. One notable case is Wright v McCormack [2023] EWCA Civ 892.
The High Court initially ruled in Wright’s favor, agreeing that tweets accusing him of lying about being Satoshi harmed his reputation. However, it awarded only nominal damages—a symbolic £1—because Wright was found to have deliberately exaggerated his distress during proceedings.
On appeal, the Court upheld this reasoning: even though defamation law protects reputations, a claimant’s dishonesty in court can reduce or eliminate compensation. The judgment emphasized that courts must balance free expression with accountability.
Interestingly, the court never ruled on whether Wright is actually Satoshi. The defendant dropped a truth defense—not because it was false, but because proving it would require an expensive, lengthy trial. This underscores how procedural strategy can shape outcomes independent of factual truth.
Anonymous Defendants: The Limits of Judicial Power
In Wright v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2982 (SCCO), Wright obtained a default judgment against bitcoin.org for hosting the Bitcoin whitepaper without his permission—a move he claimed violated his copyright.
But when it came time to assess legal costs, the defendants refused to reveal their identities. Judge Smith rejected this anonymity, stating:
“The court cannot countenance a situation where a party wishes to remain unknown to the public, the claimant, and even the court itself.”
While pseudonymity is common in crypto, UK civil procedure requires transparency for fair litigation. Without verified identities, defendants cannot meaningfully participate in cost assessments or appeals.
Ultimately, Wright was granted default cost recovery—but the case highlights tensions between decentralized culture and traditional legal norms.
Core Legal Questions Ahead
Two pivotal issues will shape the future of these cases:
- Identity Trial (January 2024): The COPA trial will finally test whether Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. If he fails to prove it, his remaining claims collapse. If he succeeds (and survives appeal), all other cases proceed in full force.
- Copyright in Digital Formats: The BTC Core appeal has already established that untraditional software expressions—like file formats—may qualify for copyright. A final ruling could influence how protocols like Ethereum or Solana are legally treated.
These decisions will impact not just Wright’s ambitions but also how tech companies protect digital assets under UK law.
Global Implications
Wright’s legal campaign extends beyond the UK, with cases pending in the US and Norway. Cross-jurisdictional consistency—or inconsistency—could affect enforcement strategies and public credibility.
Moreover, if one country recognizes Wright’s copyright claims, others may follow—potentially threatening open-source development unless courts clearly distinguish between ideas and expression.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Can someone copyright Bitcoin?
A: Not the concept or network itself. But under certain conditions, specific elements like code structure or documentation may be protected by copyright if original and fixed in form.
Q: Why does Craig Wright’s identity matter legally?
A: Because copyright belongs to the creator—or their assignee. If Wright isn’t Satoshi Nakamoto, he cannot claim authorship of the original whitepaper or code.
Q: What happens if Wright wins?
A: He could seek royalties or injunctions against entities using Bitcoin-related materials without permission—though enforcement against a decentralized network remains practically difficult.
Q: How does this affect developers?
A: A broad interpretation of software copyright could chill innovation if developers fear litigation over protocol implementations.
Q: Is open-source software protected by copyright?
A: Yes—ironically, open-source licenses rely on copyright law to enforce sharing terms. But they typically grant broad usage rights under conditions like attribution.
Q: Will this change crypto regulation?
A: Not directly—but it sets precedents for how courts handle digital authorship, decentralization, and intellectual property in Web3 environments.
👉 Explore how legal developments impact crypto innovation—get expert insights now.
What’s Next?
The January 2024 trial in the COPA case is the next major milestone. Its outcome will determine whether Craig Wright’s legal campaign continues—or collapses under scrutiny.
Regardless of the verdict, these cases are already reshaping how courts understand digital creation, authorship, and ownership in the age of decentralized technology.
For businesses, developers, and users alike, the stakes are high: the future of open innovation in crypto may hinge on a single courtroom decision.