Ipr In Litigation Strategies For Cryptocurrency Ip.
IPR in Litigation Strategies for Cryptocurrency IP
1. Understanding Cryptocurrency IP in Litigation Context
Cryptocurrency ecosystems generate multiple layers of intellectual property, even though many people assume “decentralized” means “no IP.”
Core IP Assets in Crypto
Copyright:
Source code (blockchain protocols, wallets, smart contracts)
Whitepapers (literary works)
Patents:
Consensus mechanisms
Cryptographic processes
Blockchain-based transaction systems
Trademarks:
Exchange names
Token names
Logos and brand identity
Trade Secrets:
Proprietary algorithms
Security methods
Internal scaling solutions
Litigation strategies in crypto IP must address:
Pseudonymous developers
Global jurisdiction conflicts
Open-source licensing defenses
Decentralized ownership arguments
2. Litigation Strategies in Cryptocurrency IP Disputes
A. Ownership and Authorship Strategy
Key questions:
Who wrote the code?
Was it an employee, contributor, or anonymous developer?
Was the code licensed under MIT, GPL, Apache, or proprietary terms?
Strategy:
Establish a clear chain of title using commit histories, contribution agreements, and repository metadata.
B. Open-Source Defense vs Proprietary Claims
Defendants often argue:
Code is open source → no exclusive rights
Plaintiff waived rights through public release
Counter-Strategy:
Open source ≠ public domain
Violation of license conditions still constitutes infringement
C. Jurisdiction and Enforcement Strategy
Crypto litigation often uses:
Forum shopping
In rem jurisdiction (control over digital assets)
Injunction-based relief (blocking exchanges, delisting tokens)
D. Trademark Enforcement Strategy
Courts are more comfortable enforcing trademark rights than patents in crypto.
Common claims:
Passing off
Consumer confusion
Dilution of famous crypto brands
3. Case Laws (Detailed Analysis)
Case 1: Kleiman v. Wright (Bitcoin Ownership & Copyright Claims)
Background
Dr. Craig Wright claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto
Kleiman estate alleged Wright misappropriated:
Bitcoin-related IP
Copyright in early Bitcoin code
Mining-related trade secrets
IP Issues Involved
Copyright ownership of Bitcoin source code
Trade secrets related to mining methods
Authorship of early blockchain innovations
Litigation Strategy
Plaintiff relied on:
Emails
Draft documents
Development timelines
Defendant argued:
Sole authorship
No partnership existed
Court’s Approach
Court scrutinized evidentiary authenticity
Rejected unsupported claims of authorship
Emphasized proof of creation and collaboration
Key Takeaway
In crypto IP litigation, technical evidence alone is insufficient—courts require traditional proof of authorship and ownership.
Case 2: United American Corp. v. Bitmain Inc.
Background
United American Corp. alleged Bitmain:
Stole proprietary mining technology
Copied software optimizing ASIC miners
Used trade secrets without authorization
IP Rights Asserted
Copyright infringement
Trade secret misappropriation
Unfair competition
Litigation Strategy
Plaintiff emphasized:
Confidential development processes
Restricted access to source code
Defendant argued:
Independent development
Functional aspects not protectable
Court’s Analysis
Distinguished:
Ideas vs expression
Functional mining logic vs creative code structure
Allowed claims to proceed on copyrightable elements
Key Takeaway
Even in highly functional crypto software, non-functional code expression remains protectable.
Case 3: Ripple Labs Inc. v. R3 Holdco LLC (Trade Secret & Contract IP Dispute)
Background
R3 partnered with Ripple for blockchain development
Dispute arose after Ripple withdrew from the agreement
R3 claimed breach and misuse of confidential IP
IP Issues
Ownership of jointly developed blockchain technology
Trade secrets embedded in enterprise blockchain tools
Litigation Strategy
R3 asserted:
Reliance on confidential disclosures
Contractual IP sharing obligations
Ripple emphasized:
Termination clauses
Independent IP ownership
Outcome
Court focused on contractual IP clauses
Parties settled, preserving proprietary technologies
Key Takeaway
In crypto collaborations, contracts override ideology—“decentralization” does not defeat contractual IP rights.
Case 4: Nike, Inc. v. StockX (NFT & Trademark Infringement)
Background
StockX minted NFTs using Nike trademarks
NFTs represented physical sneakers but were tradable independently
IP Rights Asserted
Trademark infringement
Trademark dilution
False designation of origin
Litigation Strategy
Nike argued:
NFTs function as independent digital products
Consumer confusion was inevitable
StockX claimed:
NFTs were merely “receipts”
Court’s Reasoning
NFTs treated as commercial goods
Trademark law applies regardless of blockchain medium
Key Takeaway
Crypto assets do not escape trademark law merely because they are digital or tokenized.
Case 5: Hermès International v. Rothschild (MetaBirkins NFTs)
Background
Artist created “MetaBirkins” NFTs inspired by Birkin bags
Hermès sued for trademark infringement
IP Conflict
Artistic expression vs trademark rights
Commercial exploitation of brand goodwill
Litigation Strategy
Defendant invoked:
Artistic freedom
First Amendment protection
Hermès demonstrated:
Intent to profit from brand recognition
Consumer confusion
Verdict
Court ruled in favor of Hermès
NFTs classified as commercial trademark use
Key Takeaway
NFT creators cannot rely on “art” defenses when commercial intent dominates.
Case 6: Dfinity Foundation v. Meta Platforms (Blockchain Trademark Dispute)
Background
Dfinity owned trademark “Internet Computer”
Meta rebranded Facebook and entered metaverse/blockchain space
Risk of confusion in blockchain-related services
Litigation Strategy
Plaintiff emphasized:
Overlapping blockchain markets
Prior trademark registration
Defendant argued:
Generic terminology
Different consumer perception
Importance
Demonstrates aggressive pre-emptive trademark litigation
Highlights brand protection in crypto-adjacent tech
Key Takeaway
Early trademark registration is a litigation shield in fast-moving crypto markets.
4. Comparative Litigation Insights
| IP Type | Litigation Strength |
|---|---|
| Trademark | Strongest enforcement |
| Copyright | Medium (depends on proof) |
| Patents | Complex, jurisdiction-sensitive |
| Trade Secrets | Strong with NDAs/contracts |
5. Conclusion
Cryptocurrency IP litigation reveals a crucial truth:
Blockchain may be decentralized, but IP enforcement remains centralized in courts.
Effective litigation strategies depend on:
Clear ownership documentation
Careful open-source compliance
Strategic use of trademark law
Contractual clarity in collaborations
RELATED Blog
comments