Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming international intellectual property arbitration, but practitioners face a complex web of varying AI definitions across jurisdictions, institutional rules, and enforcement regimes. This analysis examines how these definitional differences shape arbitration strategy, explores emerging guidelines on AI disclosure and data security, and addresses critical concerns about bias, due process, and award validity in AI-enabled dispute resolution.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Introduction
We are in an age where artificial intelligence-enabled legal applications have flooded the legal world overnight. International and domestic arbitration-specific AI tools compound the number of applications useful to general commercial disputes practices.1 Layer on top AI programs aimed exclusively at intellectual property, and IP arbitration practitioners and arbitrators are awash in AI.2 What’s more, international arbitrators must also navigate the emergence of AI laws and guidance from countries, arbitral institutions and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) organisations, committees and working groups. In this chapter, we consider the practical implications of these developments.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
View source