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.

Algorithmic decision-making is becoming widely used in private law. Today, algorithms are routinely employed to screen job applicants, execute transactions, and freeze bank accounts. However, existing rules and doctrinal approaches do not always provide adequate responses to the legal challenges posed by algorithmic errors and the lack of transparency in algorithmic decision-making systems, particularly in cases where decisions are generated by artificial intelligence operating as a “black box.” In this article, the author sets out to examine how the delegation of legally significant decisions to increasingly autonomous algorithms affects private law relationships. The author analyzes whether the established doctrinal principles and legislative rules are capable of resolving the emerging problems, or whether they require conceptual reconsideration. The study draws on the provisions of Russian civil law and personal data legislation, the provisions and practice of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as domestic and international academic literature on algorithmic decision-making, algorithmic transparency and accountability, and legal safeguards designed to mitigate the risk of unlawful algorithmic decisions. It was found that algorithmic errors and the opacity of algorithmic decision-making can lead to a discrepancy between the data subject’s will and the will expressed through the algorithmic decision. The concept of the algorithm as a representative (agent) proves unsuitable for addressing the resulting legal issues. It is argued that algorithmic decisions should be classified as legal facts constituting either lawful or unlawful acts of the individual who delegated the process of decision-making to the algorithm. The lawfulness of automated decisions should be assessed on a par with other actions of legal subjects, while taking into account the subjective element of the subject’s conduct, including algorithmic errors and the measures taken by the subject during the implementation and use of algorithms. On this basis, the author proposes a reinterpretation of the concepts of intent, knowledge, and good faith in the context of algorithmic decision-making. It is argued that algorithmic transparency and accountability should be regarded as components of a risk management system and as prerequisites for monitoring the lawfulness of automated decisions. The right to object to an algorithmic decision is effective only provided that human review includes an analysis of the decision-making logic, as well as the identification and correction of errors that influenced the decision. At the same time, judicial review is not a universal remedy against automated decisions, since the proper subject of litigation can be the unlawful conduct of the party responsible for the algorithmic decision and specific remedies applied in individual situations.

The digitalization of land relations in Russia now affects not only the form of administrative procedures, but also the legal identification of land plots, the confirmation of rights and restrictions, real estate transactions, and land control. Its legal regulation, however, remains fragmented. This study sets out to ascertain the current state and principal directions of the digitalization of Russian land law, identify the legal benefits and risks, and substantiate priorities for further legal regulation. The studied regulatory material comprises the Land Code of the Russian Federation, as well as federal laws governing state registration of real estate, cadastral activities, electronic signatures, information, spatial data, and cadastral valuation, together with the relevant subordinate legislation. The study relies on formal legal, systemic, and comparative legal methods, as well as analysis and synthesis of regulatory and doctrinal materials. The findings show that the digitalization of land law is developing in six principal areas: (1) electronic registration and registry technologies; (2) remote sensing and unmanned aerial vehicles; (3) electronic land auctions; (4) artificial intelligence; (5) 3D-modeling of real estate; (6) distributed ledgers and smart contracts. Current regulation enables basic digital procedures but does not ensure sufficient legal certainty concerning data quality and provenance, the evidentiary value of remote-monitoring results, the transparency of AI analytics, and protection against digital inequality. The main priorities consist in improving the data quality of the Unified State Register of Real Estate and the National Spatial Data System, creating machine-readable lists of restrictions and encumbrances, standardizing registry integration, using AI as an auxiliary tool for preliminary verification, and developing a 3D cadaster. While blockchain may prove useful in local operations, it does not appear as an immediate priority. The study concludes that the digitalization of Russian land law has moved from isolated experiments to institutional consolidation. Its main legal drawback is not the lack of electronic services, but the weak relationship between spatial data and the various rights and restrictions pertaining to land use. Therefore, legal regulation should be focused on the reliability and traceability of data, the preservation of procedural guarantees, and the mandatory legal assessment of automated solutions.

The article presents a jurisprudential and historical study that proposes a non‑linear interpretation of the evolution of law under the influence of the crises of technogenic civilization. The aim was to model cyclical wave regularities and mechanisms through which such crises shape the dynamics of legal development by synthesizing the crisis approach with the theory of technological orders, as well as to assess the forecasting potential of this model. The methodological framework combines dialectical and systematic approaches, enabling law in general and legislation in particular to be examined in the broader context of civilizational change. Comparative historical and formal legal methods were applied to the analysis of legal regulation in different historical epochs and legal systems. The methodological core of the study is the author’s cyclical wave model of legal development, complemented by a crisis approach to the study of law. According to the proposed model, legal development is understood as a succession of cycles determined by the life cycles of dominant technological paradigms. Within the crisis approach, law is conceptualized as a reflexive system that evolves largely in response to the challenges generated by technogenic civilization itself. Based on the history of legal regulation in Russia and other countries, the study identifies key technological orders and demonstrates that transitions between them, along with the associated crises of technogenic civilization, give rise to regularities that manifest themselves in the rhythms, phases, and waves of qualitative transformations of legal systems, all following a common cyclical wave logic. The mechanisms of cyclical lag, advance, and decyclization in the development of law relative to the dynamics of technological orders are revealed, thereby explaining how legal systems adapt to crisis-induced technological shifts. The proposed cyclical wave model can be used as a tool for long‑term forecasting of legal development scenarios and as a methodological basis for developing regulatory models of advanced legal regulation aimed at increasing the stability of law and legal regulation to possible future crises of technogenic civilization.

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.