Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright

Where several actions turn on a common factual issue, the court may adopt a hybrid case-management solution. Parties willing to be bound by the determination in the lead action may obtain a stay. Parties unable or unwilling to give that undertaking may be directed to participate in a preliminary-issue trial.

The common issue should be defined at a broad level where that is sufficient to determine the linked proceedings. The court need not prescribe every evidential sub-issue in advance. It may retain control of the matters necessary to decide the preliminary issue and prevent duplication, inconsistent positions and unnecessary costs.

The judgment arose from a joint case-management conference in four related actions: the COPA claim, the Coinbase claim, the Kraken claim and the BTC Core claim. Each raised, at a general level, whether Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto.

The COPA claim was the most advanced and was listed for trial in January and February 2024. The court had to decide whether the identity issue should be tried as a preliminary issue in all actions, whether the later actions should be stayed pending the COPA trial, how the issue should be defined, and what consequential directions were required.

1. Hybrid case management. The court adopted a hybrid approach. Parties prepared to undertake to be bound for all purposes by the outcome of the COPA trial were permitted to proceed by way of a stay. Other BTC Core defendants, including parties who might not be privies of COPA or who could not yet decide their position, were permitted to participate in a preliminary-issue trial, at their own risk as to costs.
2. Definition of the preliminary issue. The issue was defined broadly as whether Dr Wright was the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto, namely the person who created Bitcoin in 2009. The court held that it was unnecessary at the case-management stage to prescribe every sub-issue concerning authorship, the White Paper, the Bitcoin code, communications, the blockchain or the network alert key. Those matters might be relevant evidence, but the trial judge should retain control over what required determination.
3. Effect on the related actions. All parties to the later actions would be bound by the outcome of the COPA trial, subject to provision for appeals. If Dr Wright was found not to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the principal claims in those actions would end, subject to the position concerning extended passing off. If he was found to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the later actions could proceed on their specific issues, including goodwill and database right, but defendants could not contend or imply otherwise, save as necessary for extended passing-off claims.
4. Directions. The court granted a three-week, rather than four-week, extension for Dr Wright’s witness statements, extended COPA’s authenticity evidence timetable, directed skeleton arguments to be exchanged one week before trial, and made further directions concerning disclosure, bundles, costs and liberty to apply. The application for further information was not determined on the papers.

Not stated in the judgment.