Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

A civil contempt allegation requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent knew of the order, deliberately performed or failed to perform the relevant act, and knew the facts making that conduct a breach. The respondent need not know that the conduct amounted to contempt. The order must be sufficiently clear, construed objectively in its natural and ordinary meaning, context and purpose.

An injunction restraining proceedings based wholly or partly on specified rights applies whether or not the claim is also based on the respondent’s asserted identity or authorship. Promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action. Passing off requires ownership of goodwill, database-right infringement requires the claimant to assert ownership or a qualifying licence, and copyright infringement claims require the claimant to assert the relevant right or licence. A threat may be express or implicit, conditional or future.

Crypto Open Patent Alliance applied to commit Dr Wright for contempt arising from alleged breaches of anti-suit and anti-threat injunctions made on 16 July 2024.

The alleged breaches concerned public threats and the issue of a new claim against BTC Core and SquareUp Europe Limited. The new claim pleaded passing off, copyright infringement and database-right infringement, and relied on allegations concerning Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto and Dr Wright’s asserted rights.

Dr Wright did not attend the contempt hearing and was unrepresented. The central issues were whether the injunctions were sufficiently clear, whether the pleaded claims and public statements fell within them, and whether each contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Proceeding in the respondent’s absence. Applying the factors identified in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam), the court proceeded in Dr Wright’s absence. He had notice and sufficient time to prepare, had filed extensive written material, had voluntarily failed to attend, and an adjournment would not secure attendance or avoid prejudice.
2. Contempt by breach of order. The court applied the formulation in FW Farnsworth Ltd v Lacy [2013] EWHC 2387 (Ch), approved in later authorities. COPA had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dr Wright knew the order, deliberately performed prohibited acts or failed to perform required acts, and knew the facts making his conduct a breach. Intention to breach was unnecessary, although subjective understanding could affect sentence.
3. Clarity and construction. The injunctions were sufficiently clear. Their words were construed objectively, according to their natural and ordinary meaning, context, historical background and purpose. The prohibitions applied to proceedings based wholly or partly on the specified assertions of goodwill, database rights, copyright or authorship, whether or not the proceedings also asserted that Dr Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto.
4. Underlying causes of action. Promissory estoppel is a shield rather than a sword and cannot create a free-standing cause of action. A passing-off claim requires the claimant to assert ownership of goodwill, including in an extended passing-off claim. Database-right infringement requires ownership of the right or a qualifying licence; there is no reciprocal database right arising from participation in a blockchain. Copyright infringement likewise requires the claimant to assert ownership or a relevant licence.
5. Threats. A threat is an intimation which would convey to a reasonable person that rights exist and will be enforced. It may be implicit, covert, conditional or future. The public statements announcing a passing-off claim against Bitcoin developers threatened proceedings within the injunction.
6. Disposition. Grounds 1 to 5 were each proved beyond reasonable doubt. Dr Wright was therefore found liable for all five contempts alleged by COPA.

The judgment describes earlier orders and judgments in the same litigation, including the identity trial and relief proceedings. Dr Wright’s application for permission to appeal was dismissed as totally without merit by Arnold LJ on 29 November 2024. This judgment determined COPA’s subsequent contempt application at first instance.