Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright

Hearing Dates: 7 th & 14 th June 2024

APPROVED JUDGMENT

Remote hand-down: This judgment will be handed down remotely by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email and release to The National Archives. A copy of the judgment in final form as handed down should be available on The National Archives website shortly thereafter but can otherwise be obtained on request by email to the Judicial Office (press.enquiries@judiciary.uk).

This Judgment is organised as follows:

INTRODUCTION

This is my judgment from the Form of Order hearing in the five actions indicated in the heading. Most of the issues were argued at a long hearing on 7 June 2024 which lasted until just before 6pm, which meant that the issues involving Defendants 15 and 16 in the Tulip Trading Claim had to be argued a week later. It was perhaps just as well that those issues were put over, because the argument lasted another ¹/₂ day.

The present position arises for the following reasons. At the conclusion of argument on 14 March 2024 in the Joint Trial of the Identity Issue in the COPA and BTC Core Claims, I announced the result – that Dr Craig Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to his claim. I handed down the reasons for that result on 20 May 2024: see [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch) (my ‘ Main COPA Judgment’).

Meanwhile, no doubt due to my announcement of the result on 14 March 2024, but also, so far as the Tulip Trading Claim was concerned, an impending deadline for the provision of disclosure, Dr Wright and his relevant companies, including Tulip Trading Limited, gave notice of discontinuance of the Tulip Trading Claim on 16 April 2024 and of the Coinbase and Kraken Claims on 23 April 2024. Pursuant to CPR38.6(1), the claimants in all those claims became liable for the defendants' costs, to be assessed on the standard basis unless the Court orders otherwise. Perhaps not surprisingly, all the defendants to claims brought by Dr Wright or his companies sought costs on the indemnity basis, as did COPA.

The outstanding issues

Hence, it was convenient to deal with all the outstanding issues in all five actions together. Prior to the hearing on 7 June 2024, Consent Orders were agreed which covered the costs of the Kraken/Payward Defendants in IL-2022-000036, and of Mr Roger Ver, D14 in the Tulip Trading Claim. At the start of the hearing, in summary, the outstanding issues were:

i) COPA's application for wide-ranging injunctive relief against Dr Wright and his companies.

ii) COPA's application for a dissemination order.

iii) COPA's application for its costs of the COPA and BTC Core Claims.

iv) COPA's application for a general permission to use the disclosed documents in other proceedings.

v) COPA's request that I should refer the papers to the CPS.

vi) The Developers supported those five applications by COPA and, in addition, they sought the dismissal of the BTC Core Claim.

vii) The Developers' application for their costs of the BTC Core and Tulip Trading Claims.

viii) The Developers also raised the issues of what should happen in the i and McCormack claims.

ix) The application for costs by Coinbase.

x) The application for costs by the Blockstream, Chaincode and Cash App Defendants (i.e. Defendants (Ds 16, 18, 19, 20 and 26) in the BTC Core Claim).

xi) The application for costs by D15 & D16 in the Tulip Trading Claim.

Certain issues were agreed during and after the hearing on 7 June 2024, so (a) the application for costs by the Blockstream, Chaincode and Cash App Defendants was agreed during the morning of the hearing; (b) on 19 June 2024 I made a consent order in the Tulip Trading Claim in favour of Ds2–12, and (c) on 21 June 2024 I made a consent order in the BTC Core Claim in favour of the Developers (namely Ds2–12, 14 & 15). This judgment deals with the matters remaining in dispute.

I should add that the issues over the injunctive relief took up most of the time on 7 June 2024 but, even then, the arguments were compressed.

An outline of Dr Wright's position.

Dr Wright's primary position was that COPA was not entitled to any injunction/dissemination orders for the reasons developed in his closing submissions at trial.

Nonetheless, Dr Wright also indicated that he did not oppose an Order restraining him from pursuing or threatening to pursue legal proceedings based on the assertion that he is Satoshi Nakamoto because, it was said, he and his companies have no intention...