Ipr In Licensing Cryptocurrency Platforms.
IPR IN LICENSING OF CRYPTOCURRENCY PLATFORMS
Cryptocurrency platforms (exchanges, wallets, DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces, blockchain infrastructure providers) rely heavily on licensed intellectual property. Unlike traditional financial services, crypto platforms are built almost entirely on software, algorithms, branding, and proprietary data, making IPR licensing central to their business model.
The main IPRs involved are:
Copyright (software code, whitepapers, UI/UX)
Patents (blockchain methods, consensus mechanisms, cryptographic processes)
Trademarks (platform names, tokens, logos)
Trade secrets (algorithms, security architecture)
Because crypto law is still evolving, courts often rely on established IPR jurisprudence from software and digital technology cases, which now directly shape crypto licensing.
1. COPYRIGHT LICENSING AND SOFTWARE OWNERSHIP
Case 1: Oracle America Inc. v. Google LLC
Core issue: Whether software code (APIs) is protected by copyright and how licensing affects use.
Facts:
Oracle owned Java and licensed it. Google used Java APIs while developing Android without a commercial license, claiming functional necessity.
Held:
The court recognized that software code is copyrightable, but Google’s use was ultimately considered fair use.
Relevance to Cryptocurrency Platforms:
Crypto platforms often:
Fork open-source blockchains
Use APIs from wallet providers, exchanges, or oracle services
Modify existing protocols
Licensing impact:
Even open-source crypto code must be used within license terms (MIT, GPL, Apache, etc.).
Commercial use beyond license scope can amount to copyright infringement.
Crypto exchanges licensing wallet software or analytics tools must clearly define:
Scope of use
Modification rights
Redistribution rights
This case underlines that functional code ≠ free to use, a crucial point for crypto startups.
Case 2: SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd.
Core issue: Whether reproducing software functionality infringes copyright.
Facts:
World Programming copied the functionality of SAS software without copying source code.
Held:
Copyright protects expression, not functionality.
Crypto relevance:
Blockchain platforms can replicate functional ideas (e.g., staking, swaps, consensus logic) without infringing copyright
BUT copying source code, UI elements, or documentation violates copyright
Licensing implication:
Crypto licensing agreements must clearly distinguish:
What is licensed (code vs functionality)
Whether reverse engineering is allowed
Whether protocol cloning is permitted
This case protects innovation while enforcing licensing discipline.
2. PATENT LICENSING AND BLOCKCHAIN INNOVATIONS
Case 3: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
Core issue: Patentability of software-implemented financial methods.
Facts:
Alice held patents on intermediated financial settlements using computers.
Held:
Abstract ideas implemented via generic computer technology are not patentable.
Impact on Cryptocurrency Platforms:
Most blockchain patents:
Deal with transaction validation
Distributed ledgers
Cryptographic verification
After Alice:
Many blockchain patents are weak or vulnerable
Licensing blockchain patents requires careful due diligence
Crypto platforms licensing patents must assess enforceability, not just ownership
Licensing lesson:
A crypto exchange paying royalty for a blockchain patent may later find:
Patent invalid
License unenforceable
Royalty obligations unjustified
This has made cross-licensing and defensive patent pools common in crypto.
Case 4: Diamond v. Diehr
Core issue: When software-based inventions become patentable.
Held:
A software process is patentable if it produces a technical effect beyond abstract ideas.
Crypto relevance:
Cryptographic hashing methods
Zero-knowledge proofs
Hardware-integrated wallet security
These may qualify as patentable inventions.
Licensing significance:
Crypto platforms licensing patented cryptographic systems must:
Verify “technical effect”
Ensure claims are not merely abstract blockchain ideas
Define field-of-use restrictions clearly
This case balances Alice by showing how blockchain patents can still survive.
3. TRADEMARK LICENSING AND PLATFORM IDENTITY
Case 5: Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment
Core issue: Trademark infringement in digital commerce.
Held:
Use of confusingly similar names in online markets causes initial interest confusion.
Crypto relevance:
Crypto platforms frequently license:
Exchange names
Token branding
White-label trading platforms
Example risks:
Licensing a token name similar to a known crypto
Launching exchanges with confusing branding
Licensing implications:
Trademark licenses in crypto must:
Strictly regulate use of name and logo
Include quality control clauses
Prohibit token issuance under licensed marks
Failure can result in loss of trademark rights entirely.
Case 6: Wright v. Bitcoin.org (UK High Court)
Core issue: Copyright ownership of the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Facts:
Craig Wright claimed copyright ownership and sought takedowns.
Held:
The court rejected his claims due to lack of credible evidence.
Relevance to Crypto Licensing:
Whitepapers are copyrightable works
Ownership must be provable
Licensing whitepapers or protocol documentation requires clear title
Crypto platforms often license:
Educational content
Protocol documentation
Developer materials
This case shows that false ownership claims collapse licensing arrangements.
4. TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL LICENSING
Case 7: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc.
Core issue: Misappropriation of trade secrets.
Held:
Improper use of confidential technical information constitutes trade secret theft.
Crypto relevance:
Crypto exchanges license:
Matching engines
Risk algorithms
Fraud detection systems
These are often protected as trade secrets, not patents.
Licensing consequences:
Agreements must include:
Non-disclosure obligations
Restrictions on reverse engineering
Post-termination confidentiality
This is critical in white-label crypto platforms.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR IPR LICENSING IN CRYPTO PLATFORMS
Copyright licensing governs most crypto software
Patent licenses must be scrutinized post-Alice
Trademark licensing protects platform credibility
Trade secrets often matter more than patents
Open-source does not mean license-free
Poor licensing can invalidate IPR entirely
RELATED Blog
comments