Keynote Address by Mr Murali Pillai SC, Senior Minister of State for Law and Transport at the Appropriate Dispute Resolution for Technology and Intellectual Property in Singapore

27 August 2026 Posted in Speeches

UNDERWRITING THE POWER OF IDEAS IN UNCHARTED WATERS AND LARGER OCEANS

Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen

Introduction

1.                 Good afternoon.

2.                 It is a pleasure to join you at the second edition of the Appropriate Dispute Resolution for Technology and Intellectual Property in Singapore, or ADR TIPS in short, co-organised by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, IPOS, and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, CIArb.

3.                 Today, the nature of innovation is changing both in its circumstance and reach. At the speed we move today, yesterday’s agreements may well be tested in uncharted waters of tomorrow.

4.                 It is thus that we need, more than ever, processes and channels for effective dispute resolution.

The Changing Landscape

5.                 Innovation today is increasingly sophisticated, cross-border and collaborative, and I think almost everybody in this house knows that.

6.                 Consider how IP and technology disputes often arise in practice. Many arise between parties who already have a commercial relationship – under a technology licence, a research collaboration, a manufacturing arrangement or a software arrangement. The parties may have agreed in advance on the law governing their relationship and how disputes should be resolved. But when disagreements arise, parties may differ over what their agreement permits them to do, and resolving the dispute may then require looking not only at the contract, but also at the technology and IP rights involved.

7.                 New technologies and business models will bring, not just the excitement and value of new ideas, but also new kinds of disagreements. Artificial intelligence, or AI, is one obvious example. As AI develops and its commercial applications expand, it will inevitably raise new and increasingly complex questions for IP and technology dispute resolution.

8.                 These commercial relationships are also increasingly international, with technology being developed, manufactured and commercialised across multiple jurisdictions.

9.                 This presents a challenge for dispute resolution systems: the waters are not only uncharted, but we are traversing bigger oceans. To navigate our way out of the morass of dispute, we need a true north – as disputes become more complex, specialised and international, we need a way to agree, not just to disagree, but to resolve such disagreements fairly and predictably. The means for such resolution must be our true north.

10.              Against this backdrop, I would like to make three observations:

                   i.                      First, how innovation is changing the demands placed on dispute resolution systems.

                  ii.                      Second, how Singapore is responding under the Singapore IP Strategy 2030, or SIPS 2030, by strengthening our IP and technology dispute resolution ecosystem.

                iii.                      Third, why this must be a shared endeavour for the international IP community.

Innovation and Disagreements

11.              IP and other intangible assets, or IA, are at the heart of the innovation economy, and are increasingly important to the global economy. The World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, estimates that the value of corporate intangible assets approached US$100 trillion just last year, in 2025. Over the past decade, the value of corporate intangible assets has, on average, been equivalent to about two-thirds of the global GDP. Investment patterns point in the same direction. Across the economies covered by WIPO, intangible investment has grown more than three times faster than tangible investments since 2008. In 2025 alone, intangible investment amounted to 12.8% of GDP, exceeding tangible investment at 11.8%.

12.              As these assets become more central to economic growth, disputes relating to them become more consequential. They affect whether innovators bring technologies to market, whether businesses commit to collaborations across countries, and finally, how the fruits of such innovation may be shared.

13.              Innovators will collaborate and invest across borders if they are confident that any disputes can be resolved fairly and predictably.

14.              At the same time, resolving these disputes is becoming more demanding in several ways.

15.              First, IP rights are generally territorial in nature. But commercial relationships are not. A licensing, manufacturing or research relationship may span several jurisdictions, requiring parties to consider how a dispute and its resolution affect rights and commercial relationships in different markets.

16.              Second, there is an issue of expertise. IP and technology disputes frequently involve highly specialised subject matter. Depending on the dispute, resolving it may require an understanding not only of the law, but also of the technology, industry as well as commercial context.

17.              Third, there is the question of time. In some disputes, delay can in itself have significant commercial consequences, for example, when a product launch is held up, confidential information is at risk, or the technology in dispute is central to an ongoing business relationship. In such cases, a timely resolution can be important to preserving the commercial value at stake.

18.              Taken together - space, knowledge and time – all connive to make IP and technology disputes more complex.

19.              But we can rise to meet this challenge.

Singapore IP Strategy 2030: Singapore’s Strategic Response

20.              This brings me to my second observation.

21.              Singapore’s legal system has long been guided by principles of fairness, impartiality and equal justice under the law. As Singapore developed, we adapted our laws and institutions to meet changing needs and circumstances while remaining anchored in these principles. This has supported economic growth and enterprise, helping Singapore develop into a global business centre and hub for innovation as well as IP.

22.              The challenge ahead is to continue this process of adaptation as innovation becomes more sophisticated, international and interconnected.

23.              SIPS 2030 sets out Singapore’s vision and priorities to ensure that our IP ecosystem remains fit for an innovation-driven economy. Minister Edwin Tong announced new initiatives yesterday to help enterprises unlock greater value from their intangible assets, or IA, and IP.

24.              Unlocking IA and IP value is only one part of the equation. An innovation economy also requires robust protection, and this must include a dispute resolution ecosystem that gives businesses confidence.

25.              This is why strengthening Singapore’s IP and technology dispute resolution ecosystem is another important pillar of SIPS 2030.

26.              One strength of our ecosystem is the range of pathways available. Depending on the dispute, parties may choose litigation, arbitration or mediation, and draw on specialist expertise appropriate to their needs. The Aftershokz dispute provides a useful illustration. It concerned a trade mark dispute over the SHOKZ and OPTISHOKZ  marks, involving parties from Thailand and the United States, proceedings in Singapore, and related IP rights across several ASEAN jurisdictions. Through mediation in Singapore, the parties were able to resolve the Singapore proceedings as well as achieve a broader resolution across six ASEAN jurisdictions. The case shows why having different pathways matters. Where a dispute extends across several markets, an appropriate process may allow parties to address the wider commercial dispute rather than only the rights before a single national forum.

27.              These different pathways are underpinned by the same principles I mentioned earlier – fairness and impartiality – alongside transparency and quality, and certainty as well. Together, they help give parties confidence in the processes through which their disputes are resolved.

28.              Having a range of pathways is only the starting point. As the disputes themselves evolve, the expertise and processes around them must evolve as well.

29.              As IP and technology disputes become more technically complex, access to the appropriate specialist expertise becomes increasingly important.

30.              Singapore has developed specialist capabilities across our courts and dispute resolution institutions, giving parties access to expertise suited to the nature of their dispute. Complex IP and IT disputes can be managed and heard by a dedicated group of judges on the specialised IP and IT List under the Supreme Court, supported by case-management practices tailored to such disputes. More recently, the Supreme Court established a Digital Economy Specialised List for disputes arising from the digital economy, including those involving artificial intelligence as well as digital assets. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre, or SIAC, also maintains a Specialist Panel of Arbitrators for IP Disputes.

31.              We have also seen dispute resolution processes evolve in response to changing needs. The SIAC Rules 2025 provide one example. They include mechanisms aimed at responding to different levels of urgency and complexity, and at ensuring that the process remains proportionate to the dispute. The individual mechanisms are less important than the approach behind them: dispute resolution procedures should continue to evolve in response to the disputes that businesses actually encounter.

32.              Taken together, these examples illustrate what strengthening a dispute resolution ecosystem means in practice. The goal is not simply to have strong institutions operating in isolation, but an integrated range of options that gives innovators, creators and businesses access to the pathway and expertise best suited for their needs.

33.              We must also understand how those needs are evolving. This is why Singapore continues to engage internationally, including through the annual International Tech & IP Disputes Exchange (“I-TIDE”) seminar series, jointly presented by IPOS, Penn State Dickinson Law and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“WIPO AMC”). This year’s I-TIDE seminars were held in New York and San Francisco, with more than 900 registrants from over 70 countries.

34.              Beyond the United States, we are also broadening our engagements to other major innovation markets, including through exchanges with practitioners, businesses and IP institutions in China.

35.              These international engagements are also a useful two-way exchange. We go overseas intending to share Singapore’s experience, but invariably come back with insights on how the needs of practitioners and users are changing.

A Shared International Endeavour

36.              This brings me to my final observation: international engagement is important, but building a trusted IP and technology dispute resolution ecosystem requires deeper partnership.

37.              The reasons are quite practical. The parties may be from different jurisdictions. The relevant IP rights may exist across different markets. The necessary technical and legal expertise may reside in different parts of the world. And new technologies do not develop neatly within national boundaries.

38.              International partnership is therefore important. Not because every jurisdiction should adopt the same approach, but because we are different, each of us has experience and expertise from which others can learn – and hence when and if we differ, we must recognise how and why.

39.              Singapore has benefited greatly from such partnerships. Our longcooperation with WIPO is one example. The Singapore Office of the WIPO AMC was established here in 2010, and IPOS and WIPO have since worked together on initiatives supporting mediation and access to international IP expertise.

40.              We also draw on the international networks of Singapore’s dispute resolution institutions, including SIAC, the Singapore International Mediation Centre, or SIMC, and the Singapore Mediation Centre, or SMC, connecting our ecosystem to practitioners, institutions and expertise across jurisdictions.

41.              ADR TIPS itself is an example. Through IPOS’s continuing partnership with CIArb, we have brought to this room practitioners, policymakers, businesses, experts and dispute resolution institutions from different jurisdictions. Each of you bring different perspectives and experiences. And I think that diversity will become even more valuable as new forms of disputes emerge. AI and other emerging technologies will raise issues that none of us can fully predict today. Different jurisdictions will encounter those issues in different ways, and different institutions will develop different responses. There is much that we can learn from one another – about what works, where existing procedures may need to adapt, and how specialist expertise can best be brought to bear.

42.              Singapore will continue to play a facilitative role in this process, bringing together institutions, practitioners and expertise while contributing what we have learnt from our own experience.

43.              But ultimately, this must be a shared endeavour.

Conclusion

44.              Let me conclude.

45.              Innovation is about change. New technologies will create new opportunities. They will also create new commercial relationships, new questions and, inevitably, new disputes.

46.              Our dispute resolution systems must therefore continue to evolve alongside them, and this is the work Singapore will continue under SIPS 2030. This work must match the complexity of the disputes we hope to resolve – match them across space, time and expertise. This does not always mean creating something entirely new. Often, it means adapting what already works – ensuring access to the right expertise, making our processes responsive to the dispute, and remaining open to the appropriate pathway for the needs of the parties.

47.              And because innovation increasingly crosses borders, all of us must do this work together.

48.              I hope that ADR TIPS will continue to be a platform where we exchange ideas, deepen partnerships and learn from one another. After all, the purpose of bringing everyone together today is not simply to talk about the future of IP and technology dispute resolution. It is to help build it together. If we succeed, we will have a compass for people all over the world who venture into uncharted waters, on how to navigate when they disagree.

49.              We will give innovators, businesses and creators everywhere the confidence to innovate, collaborate and grow.

50.              And in so doing, we will underwrite the power of ideas to make our lives better tomorrow, in ways we cannot imagine today. Thank you.

Last updated on 27 August 2026