3 Interesting Facts about the Patent Landscape for Cryptocurrency and Blockchain
The race for patent protection in this industry remains an interesting ongoing story, and serves as evidence that many in the industry have faith in its growth and longevity.
May 10, 2018 at 10:00 AM
6 minute read
1. The number of cryptocurrency and blockchain patent applications filed skyrocketed along with the price of Bitcoin.
As the price of Bitcoin skyrocketed 32,500 percent from under 400 dollars at the beginning of 2016 to over 13,000 dollars by the end of 2017, the number of cryptocurrency and blockchain patent applications filed at the United States Patents and Trademark Office (USPTO) nearly doubled. In fact, a keyword search for “blockchain” or “cryptocurrency” shows that there are over 700 pending published applications containing at least one of these terms. Indeed, that number may be even greater considering some applicants choose not to publish their pending applications.
2. From billion dollar companies to individual inventors, everyone is trying to secure patent rights for blockchain and cryptocurrencies.
With speculation in cryptocurrencies at all-time highs, patent applications for blockchain and other crypto-related technologies have been filed by a variety of applicants led by major companies like Microsoft, International Business Machine (IBM), Mastercard, Security First Corp. (a data security company), Medici Inc. (a distributed ledger developer), and Bank of America. Along with major companies, cryptocurrency exchanges like Coinbase are attempting to carve out their niche with patents. But these entities are not the only ones seeking patent protection. Universities, small entities, and individual inventors are also pursuing patent protection. Craig Wright—who at one time claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the alleged founding father of Bitcoin—and his associates have filed over 70 patent applications related to cryptocurrency.
Although many such patent applications still await examination, patents that have been granted thus far cover a wide range of cryptocurrency-related technologies. For instance, Coinbase has received a handful of patents in recent years directed towards implementing cryptocurrency transactions at a point-of-sale using a mobile device, security systems for cryptographic transactions, blockchain identity management systems, a tip button for bitcoin transactions, and techniques for analyzing transactions in a distributed ledger. Other examples of granted patents include a patent for a system that settles securities using a custom cryptocurrency, which was awarded to the financial giant, Goldman Sachs, and a patent for “a platform to manage exchange rates between various currencies, transfer requests, and customer accounts” awarded to Bank of America, a company that has filed over 20 crypto-related patent applications in 2017. The patented platform secured by Bank of America aims to mitigate illicit actions with cryptocurrency exchanges and uses three accounts: a customer account, a “float” account that contains the cryptocurrency that the customer is selling, and another float account that contains the cryptocurrency that the customer is purchasing. Bank of America has also filed applications covering transaction validation, risk detection, real-time conversion, online/offline storage, and other aspects of the technology.
Apple, the global smartphone maker, has also joined the hunt for crypto-related patents by filing numerous patent applications, including one directed toward a process for verifying the reporting, maintenance, and validation of timestamps using blockchain and distributed ledger technology. Various entities have strived to obtain patent protection in these and other areas of cryptocurrency as well.
3. The patent landscape for cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies is in the early stages, with many unknowns.
Since the majority of blockchain and cryptocurrency patent filings are relatively recent, the law surrounding the validity and enforcement of such technology remains unknown. On one hand, the continued pursuit of cryptocurrency and blockchain-related patents has helped legitimize the underlying technologies that make cryptocurrencies possible. In addition, the recent increase in patent filings (and allowances) in this field has increased public awareness and interest in the industry.
Conversely, there are some potential drawbacks that come with increased patent application filings. Some companies file patent applications to legally reserve spots within the technology before developing useful applications of the technology. This strategy is often used by larger companies having expendable resources to prevent others from participating in and advancing the technology. A larger company can also threaten litigation to eliminate potential competition from smaller companies. This form of legal bullying is not unique to this type of technology, but it can ultimately end up hurting the general public.
To date, however, no cryptocurrency-related patent has been litigated. And given today's patent-eligibility climate, enforcing a blockchain or cryptocurrency patent may be difficult. Any issued patents may meet a fate similar to recent financial-based patents that have struggled to pass review, though only time will tell. To gauge the eligibility climate, some companies may be filing patents to test whether or not the USPTO will find the technology patentable. As a result, the USPTO may have to develop consistent guidelines that examiners can follow to ensure that each application in this field is viewed under the same light.
Enforceability is not the only obstacle to litigation. For example, the Blockchain Intellectual Property Council (BIPC), which includes prominent players such as IBM, CoinDesk, Microsoft, Deloitte, Digital Currency Group, and Ernst & Young, aims to “develop a global, industry-led defensive patent strategy” for avoiding patent trolls. The BIPC also seeks to facilitate the coexistence of patent protection and industry growth, and has discussed non-aggression agreements and cross-licensing opportunities between its members, among other strategies. Another obstacle is the open-source software guidelines that most coins (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple) utilize. Because there are many open-sourced cryptocurrencies, the disclosures related to these currencies may prevent other companies from getting patents. Further, smaller less-known cryptocurrencies may make their technology public, without having a large adoption rate. These public disclosures may be used to reject patent applications and/or to invalidate patents during litigation. In addition, companies such as Intel, Cisco, IBM, J.P. Morgan, and Wells Fargo have worked together to create an open-source standard for distributed ledgers.
As with many new technologies, the future of cryptocurrencies is speculative. Still, blockchain and other underlying technologies that make cryptocurrencies possible appear to have the potential to change industries and everyday life. The race for patent protection in this industry remains an interesting ongoing story, and serves as evidence that many in the industry have faith in its growth and longevity.
Alexander D. Georges is an associate with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. He has over six years of experience drafting and prosecuting patent applications in numerous technical fields specializing in the areas of electrical engineering, computer hardware and software. James L. Korenchan is an associate with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. He has nearly six years experience drafting and prosecuting patent applications in various technical fields, with a specialty in the areas of electrical engineering and computer hardware and software.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
- 2Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
- 3The New Global M&A Kings All Have Something in Common
- 4Big Law Aims to Make DEI Less Divisive in Trump's Second Term
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250