OpenAI has accused Chinese AI startup DeepSeek of using its proprietary models to train a competing open-source model, potentially breaching intellectual property agreements. OpenAI claims that DeepSeek employed a technique called "distillation" to enhance its AI model by learning from larger, more advanced models, possibly violating OpenAI's terms of service. This situation highlights ongoing concerns about IP rights in the rapidly evolving AI industry.
Counterfeit Goods Seizures
On January 31, 2025, authorities in Dublin conducted raids targeting intellectual property crime, resulting in the seizure of suspected counterfeit Apple AirPod Max headphones, fake Otterbox mobile phone cases, luxury goods, and cash. Approximately 180 counterfeit headphones and 185 fake phone cases were confiscated, with estimated revenue losses of €104,400 and €5,500, respectively. This operation underscores the ongoing efforts to combat counterfeit goods and protect IP rights.
Enhancements in Patent Search Tools
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has introduced "One IPO Search," a new keyword search tool for its patent database. Unlike the previous system that required specific patent numbers, this tool allows users to find existing patents using specific keywords. This development is part of a broader digitization effort by the IPO to modernize its systems and support innovation by providing an easy-to-use platform for inventors and businesses.
Legal Settlements in Fashion Design
Elizabeth Emanuel, co-creator of Princess Diana's iconic 1981 wedding dress, has settled a legal dispute with her ex-husband and former business partner, David Emanuel. The case involved allegations of copyright infringement over drawings of the wedding gown and other designs. The settlement grants Elizabeth ownership of all intellectual property rights of the Emanuel partnership, allowing her to proceed with new projects.
AI and Intellectual Property Disputes
OpenAI has accused Chinese AI startup DeepSeek of using its proprietary models to train a competing open-source model, potentially breaching intellectual property agreements. OpenAI claims that DeepSeek employed a technique called "distillation" to enhance its AI model by learning from larger, more advanced models, possibly violating OpenAI's terms of service. This situation highlights ongoing concerns about IP rights in the rapidly evolving AI industry.
01 Counterfeit Goods Seizures
On January 31, 2025, authorities in Dublin conducted raids targeting intellectual property crime, resulting in the seizure of suspected counterfeit Apple AirPod Max headphones, fake Otterbox mobile phone cases, luxury goods, and cash. Approximately 180 counterfeit headphones and 185 fake phone cases were confiscated, with estimated revenue losses of €104,400 and €5,500, respectively. This operation underscores the ongoing efforts to combat counterfeit goods and protect IP rights.
02 Enhancements in Patent Search Tools
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has introduced "One IPO Search," a new keyword search tool for its patent database. Unlike the previous system that required specific patent numbers, this tool allows users to find existing patents using specific keywords. This development is part of a broader digitization effort by the IPO to modernize its systems and support innovation by providing an easy-to-use platform for inventors and businesses.
03 Legal Settlements in Fashion Design
Elizabeth Emanuel, co-creator of Princess Diana's iconic 1981 wedding dress, has settled a legal dispute with her ex-husband and former business partner, David Emanuel. The case involved allegations of copyright infringement over drawings of the wedding gown and other designs. The settlement grants Elizabeth ownership of all intellectual property rights of the Emanuel partnership, allowing her to proceed with new projects.
These events reflect the dynamic nature of intellectual property law and its critical role in various industries, from technology to fashion.
Patent Disputes in the Pharmaceutical Industry
Recent legal battles in the pharmaceutical sector have highlighted the growing importance of intellectual property protection for drug manufacturers. In early 2025, a U.S. court ruled in favor of Pfizer in a patent dispute against a generic drug manufacturer, reinforcing the company's exclusive rights to its best-selling medication. The case underscores the ongoing struggle between brand-name pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers over patent expirations and market competition.
AI and IP conflicts
Counterfeit crackdown
Patent search upgrade
Big pharma patent disputes
Many globaltechnology companies face a significant challenge in protecting theirintellectual property rights within commercial sectors. In this study, wereview how one international company encountered widespread violations of itslicensing agreements in the Kingdom, which resulted in financial losses. Wewill explain all the practical steps taken and how these challenges wereaddressed and transformed into a success story that we at the SaudiIntellectual Property Rights Company are proud of.
The Challenge:Financial Losses and Unspecified Legal Risks
When the technologycompany discovered that several companies in Saudi Arabia were using itssoftware in violation of licensing agreements, it faced fundamental challengesthat hindered its ability to act effectively. These challenges included:
• LegalRequirements: In all countries, legal requirements require precise andspecialized knowledge and practical experience in dealing with intellectualproperty issues, especially those that typically take a significant amount oftime.
• Resources: Thecompany is focused on its business and therefore lacks the resources necessaryto gather evidence, communicate with violating companies, and manage theprocess in an organized manner.
We worked in fourphases to address the violations, encompassing all the objectives stated by thecompany.
Phase One: Analysisand Evaluation
After meeting witha specialized team to conduct a risk assessment and determine the extent of thedamages, a comprehensive compliance audit was conducted to determine the legaland financial dimensions of the losses resulting from the unauthorized use ofthe software. This phase revealed that the extent of the violations was muchgreater than initial estimates, with losses estimated at approximately $12million.
Phase Two:Implementation
Although the optionof taking formal legal action through the Saudi Authority for IntellectualProperty (SAIP) was available, the adopted strategy took into account theclient's desire to preserve its business relationships as much as possible.Accordingly, the focus was on sending formal notices to the violatingcompanies. The aim was to raise awareness, warn them of the legal consequences,and give them the opportunity to rectify the situation through severalmeasures, such as paying the license fees for periods prior to the unauthorizeduse. This has proven to be effective, especially given the strength of theSaudi Authority for Intellectual Property Rights and the capabilities of itsteam.
Phase Three:Settlement
The client wassupported in reaching negotiated settlements with the violating companies.These settlements included payment of overdue license fees while ensuringfuture compliance. To make the solutions feasible, the agreements oftenincluded flexible payment schedules, and in some cases, group discounts wereoffered to encourage settlement.
Phase Four:Protection and Ongoing Monitoring
The partnership didnot end at the settlement stage. A long-term protection and monitoring systemwas put in place to ensure the company's continued compliance with licensingregulations and protect it from future violations. The company thus focuses on itsbusiness and plans, as we monitor these companies and conduct periodic audits.
Results andConclusion
This casedemonstrates that professional and organized management of intellectualproperty matters yields tangible results. Over the six years of thepartnership, the client recovered more than $12 million, witnessed a radicaltransformation in the way they managed their licenses, and gained completeconfidence that their rights were protected. Indeed, the company's reputationfor not allowing its rights to be violated had the effect of warning othercompanies against taking this action, and consequently the number of violationsdecreased over the years due to the company's monitoring. At this point inparticular, and most importantly, the company was protecting its rights solelythrough its reputation for the strength of its follow-up and demand for its rights.
Authors of the article:
Share it with the world!
Our latest news
Stay up to date with the latest news and developments in the field of intellectual property by following the Intellectual Property Blog
.svg)
%5B1%5D.jpg)
