Published inventions. Distinct rights and mechanisms.
Digital ownership combines several engineering problems: recognising current control, authorising a fresh request, protecting keys, managing transfer and recovery, distributing encrypted content, and retiring obsolete credentials. The public patent record documents related work across these areas.
Craig Steven Wright is named as a co-inventor in the selected publications below. The records identify the other inventors separately and list nChain entities as applicants or assignees. The register explains technical relevance; it does not equate inventorship with ownership of the patent rights.
Rights status. No INTEGYRS ownership, licence, exclusivity, freedom-to-operate position or implementation-specific claim coverage is established by this register. Any such statement needs the relevant current records and agreements. The entries are published US grant documents, not a claim that a patent provides universal protection in every country.
The value of this material is a traceable technical foundation: readers can inspect the actual publications and their claims, rather than rely on a generic “patented” label. Patent rights and operational security are complementary but different kinds of protection.
Legal rights do not enforce a decryption boundary.
| Layer | What it addresses | What it cannot establish by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Patent rights | The jurisdiction-specific claims and exclusion rights of the relevant patent holder. | A licence to INTEGYRS, universal ownership of a broad idea, freedom to operate, or proof that software is secure. |
| Content rights | Permission to distribute, display, transfer or process the underlying work. | Copyright management in the present alpha or permission inferred merely from holding a token. |
| Protocol controls | Recognised possession, fresh authorization, recipient binding and transfer ordering. | Secrecy from a host operating system that can read the current software process. |
| Hardware enforcement | The proposed protected execution and output boundary. | Automatic patent coverage, absolute resistance to physical attack, or recall of information already disclosed. |
A patent can describe a useful technical construction without proving that every implementation meets a security objective. Conversely, a device can implement a useful security mechanism without resolving the legal rights needed to commercialise every component. A product assessment needs both a technical assurance case and an appropriate rights review.
Device-associated secrets and recoverable key material.
Personal device security using cryptocurrency wallets
US11356280B2 · Read the public document ↗
US grant publication dated 7 June 2022. Inventors: Craig Steven Wright and Stephane Savanah. The grant document names nChain Holdings Ltd as assignee; Google Patents lists nChain Licensing AG following a recorded name-change event.
The claims describe deriving a common secret between an electronic device and a separate key device, together with an authentication exchange. Dependent claims address encryption and decryption using that secret. This is relevant background for device-associated cryptographic access. It does not establish a hardware-enforced, non-exportable-key implementation or prove that retained plaintext disappears after a transfer.
Secure multiparty loss resistant storage and transfer of cryptographic keys for blockchain based systems in conjunction with a wallet management system
US11621833B2 · Read the public document ↗
US grant publication dated 4 April 2023. Inventors: Craig Steven Wright and Stephane Savanah. Google Patents lists nChain Licensing AG as assignee.
Claim 1 concerns using a derived common secret to transmit a share of a wallet-access verification element split into at least three shares. It specifies separate storage locations, including an independent backup provider and a user device. Dependent claims address reconstruction and Shamir sharing. It supplies a concrete published reference for distributed recovery material. A recovery design still needs authorised access to the required shares; it cannot recreate a sole signing key for which no recovery construction exists.
Credentials, software control and encrypted portions.
Methods and devices for public key management using a blockchain
US12256000B2 · Read the public document ↗
US grant publication dated 18 March 2025. Inventors: Craig Steven Wright and Wei Zhang. Google Patents lists nChain Licensing AG as assignee.
Claim 1 links a certificate to a signed transaction, checks the certified public key and checks that a designated output remains unspent. Claims 6 and 7 address revocation and replacement. This is relevant to checking whether a credential is still valid. The record does not demonstrate an INTEGYRS reader or a revocation-time guarantee. Its disclosed formats must also be distinguished from any implementation with different script restrictions.
Method and system for verifying ownership of a digital asset using a distributed hash table and a peer-to-peer distributed ledger
US12380182B2 · Read the public document ↗
US grant publication dated 5 August 2025. Inventors: Stephane Savanah and Craig Steven Wright. Google Patents lists nChain Licensing AG as assignee.
The claims describe software and licence hashes, a repository entry and a later ledger transaction that exposes a redeem script. The method compares the user key from that script with a key obtained from the repository. This is relevant to linking software authorisation to recorded control. The title's use of “ownership” should not be read as a legal determination of title or as proof of protected rendering on a consumer device.
Blockchain-implemented method for control and distribution of digital content
US12367468B2 · Read the public document ↗
US grant publication dated 22 July 2025. Inventors: Craig Steven Wright and Stephane Savanah. Google Patents lists nChain Licensing AG as assignee.
Claim 1 describes a particular payment-and-content exchange: a jointly controlled deposit, verified and co-signed payments, encrypted content portions and a key associated with the next portion. The specification uses “episode” broadly for a portion of content. This provides background for granular encrypted distribution. It does not establish resale revocation, a no-copy guarantee or the performance of INTEGYRS's current implementation.
Representing assets and their transitions.
Tokenisation method and system for implementing exchanges on a blockchain
US12182805B2 · Read the public document ↗
US grant publication dated 31 December 2024. Inventors: Craig Steven Wright and Stephane Savanah. Google Patents lists nChain Licensing AG as assignee.
Claim 1 concerns a cryptographic key pair and signature for data associated with an off-chain smart contract, metadata that references or provides access to the contract, and a user signature and script. Dependent claims include derived keys and shared secrets. This connects asset-related records with cryptographic control. It does not by itself establish the separate device, threshold and fresh-access guarantees required by a digital-possession system.
Blockchain-based exchange with tokenisation
US12499424B2 · Read the public document ↗
US grant publication dated 16 December 2025. Inventors: Craig Steven Wright and Stephane Savanah. Google Patents lists nChain Licensing AG as assignee.
Claim 1 specifies an exchange invitation, a redeem script containing asset and contract-reference metadata, publication of the script and its hash in a distributed hash table, and an invitation transaction. This is relevant to discovering and representing proposed exchanges. The issued claim's specific combination is important; the publication is not a blanket right over all token transfers or evidence that INTEGYRS uses the same transaction construction.
Registry and automated management method for blockchain-enforced smart contracts
US12505435B2 · Read the public document ↗
US grant publication dated 23 December 2025. Inventors: Craig Steven Wright and Stephane Savanah. Google Patents lists nChain Licensing AG as assignee.
Claim 1 combines an off-chain contract, an unspent output, validation data and issuer/agent signatures with renewal using a derived key and contract-specific conditions. Other claims address termination by spending and checking unspent status. This is relevant to a contract's recorded lifecycle. It does not establish a legal remedy, a protected reader or automatic applicability to a different possession protocol.
The combination and the record matter.
The publication title is an entry point, not the legal boundary of the invention. The claims, their dependencies and the relevant jurisdiction must be read in context. A broad-sounding title about “ownership,” “control” or “exchange” does not establish a blanket right over every digital possession, every transfer or every hardware reader.
The technical relevance described above is not an infringement analysis. The current INTEGYRS software model uses its own experimental interfaces and a bounded candidate transaction profile. A record involving a particular redeem script, deposit construction, recovery-share arrangement or certificate format cannot simply be assumed to cover a different implementation.
Bibliographic and claim-text review was performed on 18 October 2026. The register does not establish current title, maintenance, enforceability, licence terms or jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction scope. Google Patents qualifies its assignee and legal-status fields; authoritative registers and applicable agreements are needed for a definitive rights position.
General context: WIPO’s patent FAQ, USPTO guidance on managing a patent, and USPTO ownership and assignability guidance. A patent’s exclusion right is distinct from permission to practise every element of a product.
Build an evidence trail around the actual implementation.
For a future INTEGYRS product, the practical path is to map the chosen design to the relevant published claims, verify the parties entitled to grant any necessary licence, identify the applicable jurisdictions and record the supported commercial scope. That legal work should remain separate from the security test record.
On the engineering side, the product must still demonstrate fresh possession-state verification, safe transfer ordering, key lifecycle controls and the proposed protected endpoint. The long-term page-by-page, information-unit and frame-level model requires a complete trusted processing and output path, not just a patent citation or a hardware-backed key.
Explore the implemented software protocol and future hardware trust architecture to see what the system does today and which stronger protections must still be earned through evidence.