Intellectual property litigation in Russia and China: Digital technologies for specialized courts

The digital transformation of judicial systems is reshaping not only the technical means of interaction between courts and participants in judicial proceedings but also the adjudicative process itself. These changes are of particular importance for specialized intellectual property courts, where disputes frequently arise in the digital environment and the effectiveness of judicial protection largely depends on the integration of modern technologies. In this context, a comparative analysis of the experiences of Russia and China is particularly relevant, as both countries are actively developing digital judicial tools while following different legal and institutional paths. The article aims to identify the distinctive features of the digital transformation of courts, define the main areas in which digital technologies are employed, and assess their significance for the judicial protection of intellectual property rights. The research employs comparative legal analysis, the formal legal method, and a system-based approach. It draws on the legislation of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, decisions and regulations of their highest judicial authorities, and scholarly publications on the digitalization of justice. The paper demonstrates that digital technologies are now integrated into virtually every stage of judicial proceedings, including electronic document management, the submission and examination of electronic evidence, remote access to case files, automated case allocation, electronic judicial notifications, remote court hearings, and the use of artificial intelligence to support judicial decision-making. A comparison of the Russian and Chinese experiences shows that, although both countries pursue the common objective of improving the accessibility and effectiveness of judicial protection, they have adopted different models for the digitalization of the judiciary. The Russian approach is primarily based on the implementation of individual digital services, whereas the Chinese model emphasizes the gradual development of a unified digital platform integrating different stages of judicial proceedings. The study also identifies differences in approaches to electronic evidence, electronic interaction between courts and participants in judicial proceedings, and the use of artificial intelligence. The findings indicate that the digitalization of specialized intellectual property courts has evolved beyond a supporting function to become a prerequisite for the effective administration of justice in this field. Despite the differences between the two models, the experience of both countries indicates a gradual transition toward a comprehensive digital organization of judicial activities capable of ensuring more efficient, technologically advanced, and higher-quality adjudication of intellectual property disputes.

1. Alekseeva, E. V. (2025). Iskusstvennyy intellekt v sudoproizvodstve: Opyt pravovogo eksperimenta v Singapure, Kitaye i Kazakhstane [Artificial intelligence in legal proceedings: Experience of legal experiment in Singapore, China and Kazakhstan]. Yuridicheskaya Tekhnika, (19), 549–553.

2. Danshin, A. V. (2025). Pravovoye regulirovaniye primeneniya tsifrovykh tekhnologiy i iskusstvennogo intellekta v sudoproizvodstve Kitayskoy Narodnoy Respubliki [Digital regulation and artificial intelligence in court in the People's Republic of China]. Vestnik Kemerovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnyye i Obshchestvennyye Nauki, 9(1) 125–137. https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2025-9-1-125-137

3. Dragilev, E V., Dragileva, L. L., Drovaleva, L. S., & Palamarchuk, S. A. (2022). Informatizatsiya sudebnoy sistemy Kitaya [Informatization of the judicial system of China]. Yuridicheskaya Nauka, (8), 54–59.

4. Gong, N., & Dong, D. (2024). Application and theoretical development of artificial intelligence in civil proceedings. Pravovedenie, 68(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2024.208

5. Kapustin, O. A. (2019). Organizatsiya avtomatizirovannogo raspredeleniya del v federal'nom sude obshchey yurisdiktsii [Organization of automated distribution of cases in Federal court of general jurisdiction]. Zakon i Pravo, (1), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.24411/2073-3313-2019-10027

6. Metikoš, L., Keller, C. I., Qiao, C., & Helberger, N. (2026). Comparing the right to an explanation of judicial AI by function; studies on the EU, Brazil, and China. Computer Law & Security Review, 61, Article 106302. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2026.106302

7. Neznamov, A. V. (2019). "Tsifrovoye prosveshcheniye", dostupnost' pravosudiya i ekonomicheskaya sostavlyayushchaya tsifrovizatsii grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva ['Digital education', accessibility of justice and economic component of digitalization of the civil proceedings]. Arbitrazhnyy i Grazhdanskiy Protsess, (9), 53–57.

8. Reshetnikova, I. V. (2022). Protsessual'no-pravovyye aspekty provedeniya veb-konferentsii v arbitrazhnom protsesse [Procedural law aspects of holding of a web conference in the arbitration process]. Arbitrazhnyy i Grazhdanskiy Protsess, (7), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-383X-2022-7-31-33

9. Romanovskaya, O. V. (2024). Publichno-pravovyye osnovy tsifrovoy transformatsii sudebnoy sistemy "Umnyy sud" (opyt Kitaya) [Public law fundamentals of the digital transformation of the smart court judicial system (Chinese experience)]. Rossiyskiy Sud'ya, (6), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3791-2024-6-55-60

10. Sheremet'yeva, N. V., Baturo, I. V., & Sh, Y. (2020). Osobennosti elektronnogo pravosudiya v KNR [Features of electronic justice in the PRC]. Pravo i Praktika, (2), 159–163.

11. Skuratovskiy, M. L. (2017). Podgotovka dela k sudebnomu razbiratel'stvu [Preparation of a case for trial]. In V. V. Yarkov (Ed.), Arbitrazhnyy protsess: Uchebnik [Arbitrazh court procedure: Textbook] (7th ed., pp. 311–332). Statut.

12. Tumanov, D. A. (2024). Can artificial intelligence replace human judges? Digital Law Journal, 5(4), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2024-5-1

13. Wei, D. (2025). Primeneniye tsifrovykh tekhnologiy v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve Kitayskoy Narodnoy Respubliki [Application of digital technology in civil proceedings in the People's Republic of China]. Filosofiya Prava, (3), 53–60.

14. Zaytseva, T. R. (2022). Sistema sudov po pravam intellektual'noy sobstvennosti v KNR: Vozniknoveniye i razvitiye [Intellectual property court system in China: Emergence and development] (pp. 135–147). In A. V. Vinogradov, & P. V. Troshchinskiy (Eds.), Kitay v god provedeniya XX s'yezda KPK: Sbornik statey na osnove dokladov Ezhegodnoy vserossiyskoy nauchnoy konferentsii, Moskva, 16–18 marta 2022 goda [China in the year of the 20th CPC National Congress: Collected papers based on presentations at the Annual All-Russian Scientific Conference, Moscow, March 16–18, 2022]. Institut Kitaya i sovremennoy Azii Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. https://doi.org/10.48647/ICCA.2022.92.60.014

15. Zhang, H., Wang, R, & Cai, K. (2024). Research on the application and examination of electronic evidence preserved on the blockchain in Chinese copyright judicial practice. Computer Law & Security Review, 52, Article 105891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105891

16. Zhmakin, G. N. (2024). Iskusstvennyy intellekt v sudebnom protsesse [Artificial intelligence in litigation]. Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Protsessa, 14(2), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2024-14-2-301-318