Underscoring the World Intellectual Property Organization Advisory Board of Judges’ mission to bridge the gap between highly advanced IP jurisdictions and those that need support, the board is finalizing a two-year agenda aimed at helping judges handle complex IP litigation, Judge Prathiba M. Singh, the newly appointed chair, told MLex.
Using a rare, closed-door platform that facilitates candid judicial exchange, the advisory board at the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO, is finalizing a bold two-year agenda focused on improving high-level dialogue, expanding digital tools and further developing resources on complex procedures to facilitate judges deciding on IP matters. The aim is "to ease the lives of judges dealing with complex IP litigation by providing better comparative tools and information," said Judge Prathiba M. Singh, the newly appointed chair of the WIPO Advisory Board of Judges, in an exclusive interview with MLex.
Last month, WIPO announced 10 distinguished judges who will serve on the new Advisory Board of Judges for the 2025–2027 term (see here). The board, a high-level international forum that guides the efforts of the WIPO with judiciaries around the world, is now in the crucial phase of setting the agenda for the next two years.
Under the leadership of its new chair, the board is moving beyond conceptual discussions toward tangible deliverables aimed at strengthening the global judiciary. "Our core intention is to ensure we produce tangible deliverables — both small and large — over the next two years," Singh said.
Her appointment follows a distinguished line of female predecessors — Judge Rian Kalden, The Hague Court of Appeal and Judge Annabelle Bennett, a former Australian federal judge.
This ambitious roadmap for "tangible deliverables" stems directly from the unique nature of the board itself, which Singh explained "provides a rare, closed-door platform for judges."
This secure environment "allows for frank and open discussion without concern for external pressures, facilitating a level of interaction previously unattainable in formal settings," Singh said, speaking in her personal capacity ahead of the board’s formal agenda-setting.
This freedom has yielded a critical insight: despite vast differences in political systems, ranging from democracies to monarchies, judges globally face remarkably similar problems and think alike on core issues, Singh said.
It is this realization of common ground that is driving the board’s new priorities, designed to bridge the significant disparities in IP systems where some nations are highly advanced while others require considerable support.
Building upon the foundation laid by past chairs, the board is now actively exchanging thoughts to finalize a clear agenda by early next year, Singh said.
Central to this plan is a meaningful restructuring of the Annual WIPO Judges Forum, including the upcoming session in New York, to ensure it serves as a high-utility vehicle for substantive discussion, Singh said.
Beyond the forum, the board is prioritizing the expansion of essential resources like the "Bench Book Project" and the WIPO Lex Database. By enabling advanced research functionalities, the board aims to provide judges in jurisdictions where local case law is lacking with "ready-made comparative research" and precedent from around the world, Singh said.
The judicial institute publishes invaluable Bench Books, which Singh said are comprehensive guides authored by local judges for their respective jurisdictions. "We intend to expand this project, ensuring more countries have access to these essential, ready-made IP reference guides," she added.
Similarly, the board is exploring ways to enable advanced research functionalities on the WIPO Lex Database. The plan is to "allow judges to easily search for relevant precedent on any IP aspect where local case law may be lacking," thereby providing judges globally with ready-made comparative research, Singh said.
"The key goal is to ease the lives of judges dealing with complex IP litigation by providing better comparative tools and information," she said. This would include documenting different judicial procedures across jurisdictions, such as setting up confidentiality clubs, recording evidence and implementing foreign judgments, she added. The idea is to ensure that the shared dedication found behind closed doors translates into practical support for courtrooms worldwide.
The role of the board is to bridge the disparities between global legal systems. Singh highlighted the significant disparity in the evolution of IP systems across jurisdictions. "While some systems are highly advanced, others are rapidly catching up, and a number of countries require considerable support," she said.
— AI is a tool, not a gavel —
Offering a compelling framework for understanding the profound impact of artificial intelligence on the legal system, Singh said the interaction between AI and the courtroom can be viewed through three distinct, yet interconnected, lenses.
The first and perhaps most immediate challenge AI presents lies in the realm of intellectual property law. Singh noted that the "use or misuse of IP-protected works to build or train AI systems" is generating novel and complex legal conflicts. These emerging matters, described as "highly fact-specific...will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in IP litigation" on dockets worldwide, she said.
To meet the rising tide of AI litigation, the judiciary must proactively prepare. The need is not just for new rules. Rather, "judges require training and dedicated sessions with experts to understand AI's capabilities and implications for IP rights," Singh said, suggesting that it could be a critical topic for the WIPO Judges Forum to address.
Addressing the existential question often posed to the legal community on whether AI could ever fully replace the human judge, Singh firmly asserted that AI replacing a judge is simply "not possible at all."
The very essence of judicial decision-making requires a unique blend of attributes, which is beyond the capacity of current technology, Singh said. "Judicial decision-making requires a humane, compassionate and empathetic view," necessitating "a hands-on approach that applies the facts to the law," she explained. Essentially a human element that AI currently cannot replicate.
Singh identified the most practical and promising integration in terms of using AI as a potent tool for judicial assistance. Given the enormous volume of documentation and complex precedents facing modern judges, AI offers a highly practical means of support, particularly in performing research and generating case summaries, she said.
While technology can be a powerful aid, the ultimate authority and responsibility must always remain anchored in human judgment. Singh cautioned that integration must be handled with vigilance, concluding by saying that "all AI-generated research and summaries must be cross-verified by both lawyers and judges."
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.