Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Mellor |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 2642 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Claim Nos. IL-2021-000019 |
[2023] EWHC 2642 (Ch)
Mr. Justice Mellor
Claim Nos. IL-2021-000019
IL-2022-000069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
Mr. Jonathan Hough KC and Mr. Jonathan Moss (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP) appeared for the COPA Claimant.
Mr. Vernon Flynn KC and Mr. Richard Greenberg (instructed by Travers Smith LLP) appeared for Dr Wright.
The Claimants in the BTC Core claim are represented by Harcus Parker LLP, who did not appear at this hearing. Similarly, the Second to Fifteenth Defendants in the BTC Core claim were not represented at this hearing and made no submissions.
Hearing Date: 12 th October 2023
APPROVED JUDGMENT
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email. It will also be released for publication on the National Archives and other websites. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be Tuesday 24 th October 2023 at 10.30am.
THE HON Mr Justice Mellor
Introduction
In the COPA Claim the Claimant (‘COPA’) seeks to prove that Dr Craig Wright, the Defendant to that Claim, is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper and, more generally, not the person who adopted the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto (the person credited with having invented Bitcoin). In the BTC Core Claim, Dr Wright seeks to prove that he was. As I have previously explained, I have directed that this ‘Identity Issue’ (common to these two actions and two others) be determined in these two actions at the trial of the COPA claim which is set to commence on 15 January 2024. Only the individual Defendants in the BTC Core claim are party to the January trial (i.e. Defendants 2–15, ‘the Developers’, which is why the other defendants in the BTC Core claim are slightly greyed out in the heading).
This is my judgment following a hearing of an application by COPA to amend their Particulars of Claim to add three paragraphs – [35A-C] (in which I have underlined certain words and expressions which I discuss below). For context I have also set out here the existing [35], which, in the existing POC, is the concluding paragraph under the heading ‘Wright's failed attempts to prove he is Satoshi’:
‘35. In the premises, on several occasions when Wright has sought to prove he is Satoshi by way of documentary evidence, it has been shown that the documents he relies on are not what he claims they are.’
‘35A. In the course of these proceedings, in accordance with the order of the Court, (a) Wright has identified his “reliance documents”, namely those on which he primarily relies in support of his claim to be Satoshi; and (b) those and other documents disclosed by Wright have been the subject of examination and a report by an expert in forensic document examination for the Claimant. For many of the “reliance documents”, there are indicia showing that they have been altered or otherwise tampered with. The same is true of many other documents in Wright's disclosure which appear to bear on the question as to whether he is Satoshi. Details of indicia of alteration or tampering are set out in the First Expert Report of Patrick Madden dated 1 September 2023.
35B. It is to be inferred (a) that Wright is responsible for the alteration of or tampering with these documents, whether by carrying them out himself or having others do so at his direction or with his knowledge; or at least (b) that he is aware of the alteration or tampering. In the circumstances, it is also to be inferred that the purpose of these acts was to create documents that would be deployed to prove that Wright is Satoshi. The Claimant places reliance on the alteration of and tampering with such documents in support of its case that Wright is not Satoshi.
35C. The Claimant will also rely upon Wright's history of plagiarism as similar fact evidence to show his propensity to take credit for work others have undertaken and pass it off as his own. Specifically, Wright's LLM thesis submitted to Northumbria University in 2008 entitled ‘The Impact of Internet Intermediary Liability’, plagiarises the works ‘Liability of Internet Service Providers’ published in 1996 and ‘Intellectual Property and the Internet: A Comparison of UK and US Law’ published in 1998, both by Hilary Pearson.’
This application to amend was vigorously resisted by Dr Wright: indeed Mr Flynn KC submitted that this was probably the most important application in the case to date. The argument from the two sides occupied a full day.
As the parties did at the hearing, I will deal with the proposed amendments in two parts. I will call the amendments in paragraphs 35A and 35B ‘the Forgery Amendments’. The amendment at paragraph 35C is distinct. It is essentially a plea of similar fact evidence, the alleged similar fact being Dr Wright's propensity to pass off the work of others as his own.
In order to understand the proposed amendments, and the respective arguments on whether permission should be given, I need to explain how this claim reached this point. The evidence in support of the application was given by COPA's solicitor, Mr Sherrell, in the Application Notice. Mr Lee responded on behalf of Dr Wright in his witness statement dated 2 October 2023 ( Lee 2) which gave rise to a fairly lengthy witness statement from Mr Sherrell in reply dated 6 October 2023 (Sherrell 17).
The Forgery Amendments
The Forgery Amendments at [35A–35B] are a rather general plea of wholescale forgery of documents. COPA say that the purpose of those is formally to clarify COPA's pleaded case to reflect reliance upon the expert evidence that has been served. In particular, COPA relies upon the instances of document alteration or tampering identified in the Expert Report of Mr Madden served by COPA in support of their case that Dr Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto and that he consistently proffers false and doctored documents in support of his claim. COPA say that the amendments ‘ do no more than to restate COPA's existing position’.
In summary, COPA's argument is as follows. At the time proceedings were served, COPA did not know on what documents Dr Wright would rely in this action in support of his claims. Nor was COPA in a position to analyse his documents until they had been disclosed. Therefore, when first pleading their case, COPA gave the best particulars they could at the time. COPA proceeded to make clear (a) that the examples they had pleaded were particulars of a case of dishonesty and forgery and (b) that they would in due course rely on such other findings of alteration as might be made on the basis of forensic examination of documents relied on by Dr Wright. COPA further say that the directions given at the CCMC reflected that latter point, which was understood by Dr Wright's then Counsel. Hence, COPA say these amendments are exactly what was always expected to happen, once COPA had the chance to have Dr Wright's documents forensically analysed (by Mr Madden).
Dr Wright contends the Forgery Amendments should be refused for 10 reasons: (i) they are not merely clarificatory and do not simply “ restate COPA's existing position”; (ii) there is insufficient time from now until trial for Dr Wright to be given a fair opportunity to respond to the vast number of new, very serious allegations raised by the proposed amendments; (iii) the trial timetable itself cannot accommodate the new allegations raised by the proposed amendments; (iv) they are “ very late” in the sense that they threaten the trial date; (v) they are on any view “ late” because they will require Dr Wright to revisit significant steps in the litigation; (vi) they are unnecessary because assuming (for the sake of argument) that the court accepts COPA's case on the alleged inauthenticity of documents, it would be unnecessary for the purposes of resolving the Identity Issue for the judge to go on to make additional findings of forgery in respect of those documents; (vii) they are disproportionate because attempting to introduce a vast number of new allegations of forgery, only a matter of months before trial, goes well beyond what proportionality requires for the fair determination of the Identity Issue; (viii) the amendments are not properly particularised and fall foul of the most fundamental principles relating to pleading fraud; (ix) they will cause significant prejudice to Dr Wright, including serious disruption of his preparations for trial; and (x) the prejudice to COPA of disallowing unnecessary and disproportionate amendments, which have not been properly particularised, will be very limited.
As can be seen, these reasons engage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
COPA v Wright PTR
...application to plead additional allegations of forgery. I handed down a reserved judgment from that application on 24 October 2023, ( [2023] EWHC 2642 (Ch)), leading to my Order dated 31 October giving COPA permission to plead additional allegations of forgery against Dr Wright (limited to......