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​ 

January 22, 2026
On January 20, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued Decision No. 96/QD-BTC to formally launch pilot administrative procedures for licensing crypto asset trading market services in Vietnam. The decision took immediate effect and implements the government’s pilot crypto asset market program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP. Notably, competent authorities have now begun accepting license applications, marking the first time Vietnam has operationalized a licensing pathway for crypto trading market operators. Administrative Procedures and Applications The decision stipulates procedures for (i) granting, (ii) adjusting, and (iii) revoking licenses to provide services for organizing crypto asset trading markets. It provides detailed, step-by-step guidance for each procedure, including dossier composition, internal review stages, coordination mechanisms, and statutory timelines. These procedures apply specifically to entities seeking to organize and operate crypto asset trading markets within Vietnam’s pilot regulatory framework. The MOF is the authority responsible for reviewing and deciding on the above procedures, with the State Securities Commission acting as the receiving, coordinating, and procedural focal point. For licensing applications, the MOF will coordinate with multiple authorities, including the State Bank of Vietnam and the Ministry of Public Security, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, system safety, and risk control requirements. Applications may be submitted in person, by post, or electronically via the National Public Service Portal or the administrative procedure information system, in line with applicable regulations. Statutory processing timelines vary depending on the specific procedure and stage involved. For applications to obtain a license to organize a crypto asset trading market, the process is conducted in multiple phases: The MOF will issue an initial written response within 20 working days from receipt of a complete and valid initial dossier, following which, upon submission of the full set of required documents, the MOF will complete substantive review and issue the license
Read More
January 21, 2026
On January 16, 2026, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee released for public comment a draft notification that would require social media platforms operating in Thailand to implement identity verification for all user accounts and advertisers, with enhanced scrutiny for high-risk advertising activities. If finalized in its current form, the Notification on Measures to Prevent Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers would take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, fundamentally changing how platforms verify users and monetize advertising services. The public comment period is open through February 2, 2026. Mandatory User and Advertiser Identity Verification The draft establishes a universal requirement that all social media service providers implement identity verification measures for every user account. The draft imposes stricter verification obligations for advertisers than for general users. Before publishing any advertisement, platforms must verify the advertiser’s identity at a level sufficient to identify the advertiser, unless the advertiser has previously completed verification. Risk-Based Advertisement Verification The identification requirements for advertisers will be more stringent in the following cases: The advertiser has a history of user complaints or has previously violated the platform’s terms of service. The advertisement involves finance, investment, loans, sensitive personal data, or content flagged as potentially involving cybercrime. The advertisement specifically targets vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or other at-risk demographics. In such cases, platforms must conduct identity verification using government-issued identification documents and must confirm the accuracy, authenticity, and currency of these documents with the issuing government agencies. Alternatively, platforms may verify identity through an eligible digital identity verification and authentication system provider. Information Retention Platforms must retain specific information for each advertiser, including the name of the individual or juristic person and any representatives, government-issued identification documents such as ID cards, passports, or certificates of incorporation, and reachable contact information including
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
Read More