Wright v BTC Core [2023]
Share
Wright and others v BTC Core and others [2023] EWCA Civ 868 is an English intellectual property law case that deals with copyright infringement allegations related to the Bitcoin File Format.
Craig Steven Wright, claiming to be the creator of Bitcoin (Satoshi Nakamoto), and two of Dr Wright's companies were the claimants. Defendants included companies and individuals from around the world accused of copying the Bitcoin File Format without Dr Wright's consent. The claimants argued that copyright subsists in the Bitcoin File Format, claiming ownership as the creators, and alleged copyright infringement by the defendants.
Mr Justice Mellor initially refused permission for serving claim forms outside England and Wales. CPR 6.36 requires court permission to serve a claim form outside the jurisdiction in specific circumstances. Mr Justice Mellor applied the requirement that the court must be satisfied there is a serious issue to be tried for granting permission.
Claimants applied for and were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Mellor's refusal. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justices Arnold and Warby, heard the appeal on July 12, 2023, and delivered its judgment on July 20, 2023. Lord Justice Arnold, delivering the lead judgment, held that the claimants had a real prospect of success, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
Lord Justice Arnold outlined five requirements to establish copyright in the Bitcoin File Format, including being a work, falling within protected categories, being fixed, being original, and qualifying for copyright protection. The judge was satisfied that the claimants had a real prospect of success in establishing the Bitcoin File Format as a work. The focus then shifted to the requirement of fixation.
Mr Justice Mellor was not satisfied that the Bitcoin File Format had been recorded, citing reasons related to the absence of identified content defining its structure. Flaws in Mr Justice Mellor's reasoning were identified by Lord Justice Arnold, including confusion between the work and its fixation, the misconception that content defining the structure was necessary for fixation, and failure to apply the test set by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of Appeal held that the fixation requirement had been satisfied, emphasising that the first block in the blockchain served to evidence the existence of the Bitcoin File Format and determine the scope of protection.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, disagreeing with Mr Justice Mellor's decision and holding that the fixation requirement for copyright in the Bitcoin File Format had been met.
Craig Steven Wright, claiming to be the creator of Bitcoin (Satoshi Nakamoto), and two of Dr Wright's companies were the claimants. Defendants included companies and individuals from around the world accused of copying the Bitcoin File Format without Dr Wright's consent. The claimants argued that copyright subsists in the Bitcoin File Format, claiming ownership as the creators, and alleged copyright infringement by the defendants.
Mr Justice Mellor initially refused permission for serving claim forms outside England and Wales. CPR 6.36 requires court permission to serve a claim form outside the jurisdiction in specific circumstances. Mr Justice Mellor applied the requirement that the court must be satisfied there is a serious issue to be tried for granting permission.
Claimants applied for and were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Mellor's refusal. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justices Arnold and Warby, heard the appeal on July 12, 2023, and delivered its judgment on July 20, 2023. Lord Justice Arnold, delivering the lead judgment, held that the claimants had a real prospect of success, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
Lord Justice Arnold outlined five requirements to establish copyright in the Bitcoin File Format, including being a work, falling within protected categories, being fixed, being original, and qualifying for copyright protection. The judge was satisfied that the claimants had a real prospect of success in establishing the Bitcoin File Format as a work. The focus then shifted to the requirement of fixation.
Mr Justice Mellor was not satisfied that the Bitcoin File Format had been recorded, citing reasons related to the absence of identified content defining its structure. Flaws in Mr Justice Mellor's reasoning were identified by Lord Justice Arnold, including confusion between the work and its fixation, the misconception that content defining the structure was necessary for fixation, and failure to apply the test set by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of Appeal held that the fixation requirement had been satisfied, emphasising that the first block in the blockchain served to evidence the existence of the Bitcoin File Format and determine the scope of protection.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, disagreeing with Mr Justice Mellor's decision and holding that the fixation requirement for copyright in the Bitcoin File Format had been met.
