Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Crypto Open Patent Alliance on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (2)

Court
UK
Jurisdiction
UK
Decided
2025-05-12
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) granted for 3 years; Case referred to Attorney General; Costs awarded to applicants.
Monetary penalty
100000 GBP

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case law authorities in his Court of Appeal permission materials; Arnold LJ noted numerous false references to authority and certified the application TWM. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented legal authorities in his appeal filings; both Arnold LJ and Mellor J remarked on misstatements of authority. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Falsely asserted the Court failed to follow autism experts’ recommendations on special measures during his evidence in the Joint Trial; identified by Arnold LJ as one of many falsehoods. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Falsely claimed the Court refused an application to admit expert evidence from Dr Bryant; rejected in the Court of Appeal reasons. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Falsely stated the Court relied on evidence from individuals (e.g., Jameson Lopp) who did not give evidence; identified as a falsehood by the Court of Appeal. || Misrepresented: Other | Repeated false allegations of judicial bias in appeal and subsequent filings; expressly rejected by Arnold LJ and Mellor J. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | In his Supreme Court petition, falsely alleged the High Court reversed the burden of proof and/or applied the criminal standard; noted by the Court as a falsehood. || Misrepresented: Other | In his Supreme Court petition, falsely claimed the High Court failed to account for his autism condition; identified by the Court as untrue. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | In his Supreme Court petition, falsely asserted COPA’s expert witnesses were biased due to financial interests; identified as a falsehood. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent authorities in the New Claim filings; Mellor J noted use of AI-generated prolix documents containing such errors. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Advanced lengthy submissions on promissory estoppel that the Court characterised as legal nonsense, mis-stating the doctrine.

Details

AI UseDr. Wright, after beginning to represent himself, repeatedly used AI engines (such as ChatGPT or similar) to generate legal documents. These documents were characterized by the court as "highly verbose and repetitious" and full of "legal nonsense". This use of AI contributed to filings containing numerous false references to authority and misrepresentations of existing law.Hallucination DetailsWhile the core issue in Dr. Wright's litigation was his fundamental dishonesty (claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto based on "lies and ... elaborately forged documents" ), the use of AI introduced specific problems. His appeal documents, bearing signs of AI creation, contained "numerous false references to authority". His later submissions also involved "citation of non-existent authorities". This AI-driven production of flawed legal arguments formed part of his broader pattern of disrespect for court rules and process.Ruling/SanctionMr Justice Mellor granted a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) against Dr. Wright for a three-year period. He found that an Extended CRO (ECRO) would be insufficient given the scope and persistence of Dr. Wright's abusive litigation. The court also referred Dr. Wright's conduct to the Attorney General for consideration of a civil proceedings order under s.42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Dr. Wright was ordered to pay the applicants' costs for the CRO application, summarily assessed at £100,000.Key Judicial ReasoningThe court found "overwhelming" evidence that Dr. Wright had persistently brought claims that were Totally Without Merit (TWM), numbering far more than the required threshold. This conduct involved extensive lies and forgeries across multiple jurisdictions and targeted individuals who often lacked the resources to defend themselves. The judge concluded there was a "very significant risk" that Dr. Wright would continue this abusive conduct unless restrained. The court noted his consistent contempt for court rules and processes, including his perjury, forgery, breach of orders, and flawed submissions (including those using AI). A GCRO was deemed just and proportionate to protect both potential future litigants and the finite resources of the court system

Sanction teardown · UK, UK · 2025-05-12

Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (2)

What happened

In UK, UK, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited non-existent case law authorities in his Court of Appeal permission materials; Arnold LJ noted numerous false references to authority and certified the application TWM.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented legal authorities in his appeal filings; both Arnold LJ and Mellor J remarked on misstatements of authority.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Falsely asserted the Court failed to follow autism experts’ recommendations on special measures during his evidence in the Joint Trial; identified by Arnold LJ as one of many falsehoods.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Falsely claimed the Court refused an application to admit expert evidence from Dr Bryant; rejected in the Court of Appeal reasons.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Falsely stated the Court relied on evidence from individuals (e.g., Jameson Lopp) who did not give evidence; identified as a falsehood by the Court of Appeal.
  • Misrepresented (Other)
    Repeated false allegations of judicial bias in appeal and subsequent filings; expressly rejected by Arnold LJ and Mellor J.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    In his Supreme Court petition, falsely alleged the High Court reversed the burden of proof and/or applied the criminal standard; noted by the Court as a falsehood.
  • Misrepresented (Other)
    In his Supreme Court petition, falsely claimed the High Court failed to account for his autism condition; identified by the Court as untrue.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    In his Supreme Court petition, falsely asserted COPA’s expert witnesses were biased due to financial interests; identified as a falsehood.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited non-existent authorities in the New Claim filings; Mellor J noted use of AI-generated prolix documents containing such errors.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Advanced lengthy submissions on promissory estoppel that the Court characterised as legal nonsense, mis-stating the doctrine.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) granted for 3 years; Case referred to Attorney General; Costs awarded to applicants. (monetary penalty: 100000 GBP.)

Additional detail

AI UseDr. Wright, after beginning to represent himself, repeatedly used AI engines (such as ChatGPT or similar) to generate legal documents. These documents were characterized by the court as "highly verbose and repetitious" and full of "legal nonsense". This use of AI contributed to filings containing numerous false references to authority and misrepresentations of existing law.Hallucination DetailsWhile the core issue in Dr. Wright's litigation was his fundamental dishonesty (claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto based on "lies and ... elaborately forged documents" ), the use of AI introduced specific problems. His appeal documents, bearing signs of AI creation, contained "numerous false references to authority". His later submissions also involved "citation of non-existent authorities". This AI-driven production of flawed legal arguments formed part of his broader pattern of disrespect for court rules and process.Ruling/SanctionMr Justice Mellor granted a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) against Dr. Wright for a three-year period. He found that an Extended CRO (ECRO) would be insufficient given the scope and persistence of Dr. Wright's abusive litigation. The court also referred Dr. Wright's conduct to the Attorney General for consideration of a civil proceedings order under s.42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Dr. Wright was ordered to pay the applicants' costs for the CRO application, summarily assessed at £100,000.Key Judicial ReasoningThe court found "overwhelming" evidence that Dr. Wright had persistently brought claims that were Totally Without Merit (TWM), numbering far more than the required threshold. This conduct involved extensive lies and forgeries across multiple jurisdictions and targeted individuals who often lacked the resources to defend themselves. The judge concluded there was a "very significant risk" that Dr. Wright would continue this abusive conduct unless restrained. The court noted his consistent contempt for court rules and processes, including his perjury, forgery, breach of orders, and flawed submissions (including those using AI). A GCRO was deemed just and proportionate to protect both potential future litigants and the finite resources of the court system

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/449/Crypto_Open_Patent_Alliance_v._Wright_UK_May_12_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/449/Crypto_Open_Patent_Alliance_v._Wright_UK_May_12_2025.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template