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.

This case comment examines Ruling No. 2-P of January 20, 2026, of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which reviewed the constitutionality of Article 14(6) of the Federal Law “On Digital Financial Assets and Digital Currency.” The contested provision conditioned judicial protection of claims related to digital currency on prior notification of tax authorities regarding ownership and transactions involving such assets. The presented analysis focuses on situations in which compliance with this requirement was objectively impossible, due to the absence of any established notification procedure for individuals who did not engage in digital currency mining. The Timchenko case demonstrates how a formally neutral access-to-justice condition operated in practice as a de facto denial of judicial protection, applied without any assessment of fault, unlawful conduct, or harm to public interests. The comment establishes that the provision conflicted with the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, as well as with the constitutional guarantees of equality before the law and the right to judicial protection. Particular attention is given to the Constitutional Court’s reasoning that the state, once permitting — even in a restricted form — the circulation of a certain asset, may not entirely exclude judicial protection of proprietary claims relating to that asset. The Court further emphasized that denying access to justice for failure to comply with a non-existent or indeterminate procedure is incompatible with constitutional standards. The final section highlights issues left unresolved by the judgment, including the broader permissibility of denying judicial protection as a means of enforcing public-law obligations and the growing tendency to employ private-law restrictions as instruments of state control. The comment recommends the establishment of clearer constitutional limits to prevent the use of civil-law mechanisms for purposes unrelated to the protection of private rights.

It products are often complex solutions combining hardware, software, and related services, delivered partly through digital means and integrated to serve a single purpose. Russian courts have been extremely cautious in extending the legal regime governing goods to intangible it products, including the application of civil law regulation to product quality and product delivery. Prerequisites for applying a consistent approach can be seen only in the sphere of consumer disputes. Against this background, Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 307-ES25-7553 dated 19 December 2025 in case No. 56-4294/2024 deserves particular attention. The case arose from a commercial dispute concerning the B2B supply of a comprehensive it product consisting of a server, software, and digital certificates granting access to technical support services. This commentary examines the distinctive features of the Supreme Court’s position regarding the legal characterization of the contractual relationship, the legal concept of it product quality, and the range of unresolved issues. The analysis employs formal-legal, systemic, and functional methods. The lower courts, relying on the contractual terms, excluded both the technical support certificates and the technical support services from the scope of statutory quality requirements, thereby limiting the application of Articles 469 and 475 of the Russian Civil Code. The Supreme Court, by contrast, endorsed a more functional understanding of the concept of “goods.” Under this approach, the central question concerns the legal nature of the certificates, their role within the entire IT product, and the extent to which the rules governing product quality are applicable to these certificates. The commentary outlines the specific features of applying a purposive (functional) approach to assessing the quality of complex hardware–software systems and highlights the issues associated with allocating contractual responsibilities between vendors (rights holders) and distributors within the supply chain. It is concluded that the Supreme Court’s position will prove significant for disputes involving business purchasers of IT products. The Court demonstrated the willingness to apply a less formal approach, thereby strengthening the remedies available to buyers. However, no comprehensive legal characterization was given, and several fundamental issues remained unresolved.