Can computer programs resolve legal disputes? For decades, the answer from much of the legal community has been no. However, developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular natural language processing and machine learning, have led to renewed discussions of this possibility. Increasingly, tools are being developed to assist parties with litigation outcome prediction and judges with litigation outcome determination. However, while some argue that the use of AI in legal disputes can reduce the length of proceedings, cut costs, and improve access to justice, others raise concerns that “black box” AI systems could reduce transparency, entrench bias, and harm the development of the law. Litigation Outcome Prediction The use of computers to predict the outcome of legal cases is not new. As early as the 1980s, researchers developed outcome prediction tools, often in the form of decision-tree algorithms. However, developments in AI have allowed the creation of more sophisticated prediction models. In 2017, a model built by Katz et al. predicted US Supreme Court decisions with an accuracy of 70.2%, while in 2019, a model built by Medvedeva et al. predicted decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with an accuracy of 75%. In various studies, AI tools have been able to predict case outcomes more accurately than expert lawyers. Companies such as Solomonic and Lex Machina, owned by LexisNexis, now provide commercial litigation prediction and analytics tools. Outcome prediction tools can be used by parties and their legal representatives to craft arguments and facilitate settlement negotiations, or by third-party litigation financers to assess the risk of providing funding. More broadly, outcome prediction may be used by the likes of insurance companies to help calculate claim payouts. However, those using such tools must take care to ensure that they do not breach any professional or legal obligations.

April and May witnessed intriguing developments within Vietnam’s intellectual property community. On the legislation side, of particular note was the issuance of Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP on April 26, coinciding with World IP Day. Decree 17 provides guidance on implementation of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law with regard to copyright and related rights, and has garnered significant attention due to several issues, especially the liability of intermediary (internet) service providers and copyright violation in the digital environment. Additionally, two noteworthy IP cases have emerged, albeit with limited public disclosure and awareness of specific details. Nonetheless, these cases are expected to have far-reaching implications. Copyright: Criminal Case Against Unauthorized Broadcasting of Football Matches For a considerable period of time, Vietnamese football enthusiasts have enjoyed being able to watch matches on TV and online from numerous top global football leagues. While many of these broadcasts were legitimate, with the rights purchased by Vietnamese and regional broadcasters, the unauthorized transmission and broadcasting of football matches on the internet has become increasingly prevalent. Authorities have seemingly faced challenges in curbing this issue through criminal action. In a positive development, in early May the Hanoi police decided to open a criminal proceeding against the unauthorized transmission and broadcasting of high-profile overseas football matches after a rigorous two-year investigation. Prior to this decision, authorities encountered difficulties in accurately determining the relevant laws and the nature of the violation to meet the requirements for prosecution. Specifically, they grappled with the question of whether a football match, or more specifically, a recorded video of a football match, could be considered a copyrighted work. If copyright protection extended to football matches and/or recorded videos, then transmitting and broadcasting these matches directly through the internet could be deemed illegal acts of copying or distributing (copyrighted) works, as outlined in Article

Arbitration specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution team in Bangkok contributed the Thailand chapter to the recently published Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards Guide from Global Arbitration Review (GAR). The Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards Guide addresses the evolving realities of today’s legal landscape, in which enforcement of arbitral awards is a growing concern. It also offers guidance on challenging awards in different jurisdictions. Part I of the guide offers a comprehensive thematic overview to provide readers with a clear understanding of the intricacies involved in the arbitration process. Part II then explores the specifics of challenging and enforcing arbitration awards in 29 different jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter—which was authored by counsel Michael Ramirez, partner Noppramart Thammateeradaycho, and associate Anyamani Yimsaard—covers the following topics: Requirements for the form of arbitral awards; Recourse against an award; Setting aside; Recognition and enforcement of awards; Procedure for service of judicial and extrajudicial documents; Identification of assets; Enforcement proceedings; Interim measures; Attachment proceedings; and Recognition and enforcement against foreign states. The Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, or visit the GAR website to explore the full guide.

Efficiency and predictability in the global supply chain are critical for business operations. Whether involved in manufacturing, distribution, logistics, or even in the provision of services, most business operators rely upon problem-free customs clearance in the countries in which they operate. If customs disputes do arise and are not effectively addressed, they can have a profound impact on operations, delaying delivery, creating potential civil and criminal liabilities, or even resulting in the seizure of imported goods. Often, importers or their agents can become complacent, particularly where there has been a period of months or even years of customs clearance without encountering any issues. However, disputes can arise, often relating to origin of goods, classification, and duty assessment. When not addressed early in the dispute process or through settlement, a dispute can escalate, leading to issuance of official letters of assessment by customs authorities. Once Thai customs has issued such a formal letter of assessment to an importer, discretion in settlement is gone and only the full value of the duty assessment can be accepted. At this stage, the only legal avenue for challenge is to accept the duty assessment or to litigate. This article addresses post-assessment litigation options to challenge official customs duty assessments. Customs Board of Appeals Once an official assessment is made, an importer has the right to seek a formal appeal of the customs assessment with the Customs Board of Appeals or to otherwise make payment of the full assessment within 30 days of the date it received the assessment. Extensions of time are not permitted. With few exceptions, the right to appeal does not allow the importer to defer an assessed duty payment. This means that the importer must post security for the assessed duty at the time of filing the appeal. This essentially means