You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 22, 2020

Artificial Intelligence and Legal Research in the 21st Century

Subscribe to Updates
International Trademark Association

John McCarthy, an American computer scientist and inventor, coined the term “artificial intelligence” (AI) in 1956, and is often called the father of artificial intelligence. Now, nearly a half century later, legal professionals recognize that AI is not just a buzzword for novel computer software but, with the ability of computers to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, it holds great potential for technology growth.

The term AI followed from research that studied and developed concepts around “thinking machines.” Today, AI is generally accepted as a branch of computer science. It concerns the ability of computers to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence. Subsets of AI include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, computer vision, and neural networking.

Existing Use of AI in Legal Research

So far, the legal profession’s utilization of AI pales in comparison to other sectors, according to a 2019 management consultancy study by Bain & Company. It found that only about 20 to 25 percent of legal departments embrace AI in at least one area of their work, while 40 percent of finance departments and 54 percent of human resources departments do so.

A survey in 2017 (on research not associated with AI) by the American Bar Association found that attorneys spend, on average, 16.3 percent of their working hours conducting legal research. Despite the transition of legal research within the last century from using traditional hardcopy materials to computerized databases, to the adoption of online research within the past few decades, little has changed in the time investment, the survey said.

With clients pressuring lawyers to reduce costs, leveraging AI to conduct legal research can save time and money. A 2018 article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology  exemplified this point in referencing a bankruptcy lawyer who spent 10 hours searching for a key case, whereas an AI platform located the case instantly. With the availability of this type of potential saving, clients may no longer feel they should pay for significant amounts of attorney time conducting legal research.

This cost saving, however, may come at a price. In general, some have expressed concern over accuracy in conducting legal research using AI. This perception means the legal profession needs to be educated to test platforms and develop reliance on AI that does not require compromising on quality.

Consideration should be given to the potential use of AI platforms in future trademark oppositions and infringement cases. For instance, AI may lead to a change in the trademark similarity comparison criteria and in the average consumer’s perception of conflicting signs. Trademark offices around the world are testing AI tools that may have a significant impact on the way trademarks are protected globally. Trademark analysts are now able to find not only phonetic similarities but also graphic and concept similarities. For example, the trademark research tool used by examiners at the National Institute of Industrial Property in Chile helps them save time when reviewing trademark applications.

How Practitioners Might Use AI: A Quick Look

There are currently a number of AI tools and platforms that perform tasks for legal representatives. The authors chose several tools and platforms without prior knowledge of their capabilities and assessed their features and functionality. The examples are presented anonymously here.

Platform 1 is a search engine (software that carries out only a search function, compared to platforms, which multitask and have additional functionality) that primarily presents cases by theme, jurisdiction, relevance, and content. It is partially driven by legal AI software that analyzes the content of legal briefs, evaluating and then scoring their strengths and weaknesses. It considers arguments, good drafting, and context.

In considering arguments, the software analyzes not only the logical aspects of an argument, but the historical results of those arguments and cases cited. The software can show how, historically, the arguments have proven favorable to one side or the other. They can suggest cases that may improve the legal drafting and thereby (hopefully) the result. It offers a final report with graphics and precise information.

Platform 2 is an analytical legal search engine that primarily provides analytics of law firms, courts, and judges. It studies the language used by judges, the other party’s experience, and related case work, among other data. The search engine provides results to facilitate the way in which an attorney recognizes relevant information.

Platform 3, also a search engine, targets U.S. lawyers searching for relevant terms and covers regulations, law, and cases in the United States. It has a function similar to that used for some years by patent attorneys (including those practicing before the European Patent Office, not just the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office), and provides data on the number of times cases have been cited in other cases (and for patent attorneys, the number of times a patent is cited in other specifications).

The results can indicate the significance of the case in the relevant field. It enables the researcher to add notes to the cases and to centralize this analysis in one place for a specific search. The tool is designed to help advocates prepare legal submissions.

Platform 4 enables analysis of parameters such as damages, counsel, judges, parties, and the relevant field of law for hearings. It helps provide the litigation team with knowledge and data sufficient to risk-assess whether litigation is worthwhile. In essence, this is a tactical tool designed to try and outthink the opponent and its lawyers, and to “play” the judge to one side’s benefit.

Conclusions

This sample of AI tools and platforms shows the variety of functionalities and features available to legal practitioners in many practice areas, including trademark filing and litigation. Particularly when practitioners are conducting legal research, leveraging these systems may provide significant gains in time and accuracy.

However, practitioners will likely need to invest the time and cost to understand how a specific AI solution could benefit them and their clients. To gain the necessary level of confidence among legal teams, AI providers should focus on educating practitioners about the benefits and, more importantly, the accuracy of such systems. Only then will there be an increase in the uptake of these AI tools and platforms.

 

This article was first published by the International Trademark Association on inta.org. It was written in conjunction with three other members of the INTA Emerging Issues Committee: Erin Lothson (Uber Technologies), Fabricio Tkaczyk (P&T IP), and Paul A. Harris (Venner Shipley LLP). 

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More